Ezra Levant Makes Sense


dumpthemonarchy
#1
Ezra Levant has a good book out called Shakedown that exposes the gross corruption of Canadian Human Rights commissions. This link is from his web page and has videos showing how rotten HRCs are. He talks on the MIchael Coren show,

In one complaint he talks how former commissioners go on to Nazi forums, write spurious terrible bigotry against Jews, Blacks etc, wait for people who agree, who write the same thing, and then sues them in HRC kangaroo court, and make thousands of dollars. HRCs are disgusting.

Even in the Star Chamber you knew your accuser, not in HRC kangaroo courts, they can be kept secret by the HRC. There are so many abuses.

There 14 of these commissions, spending $200 million with 1000 staff. Time to downsize big time here.

Ezra Levant: March 2009 Archives
 
pgs
#2
Your tax dollar at work.
 
taxslave
#3
But they are doing it for your own good because only a PC socialist knows what is right.
 
Machjo
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

But they are doing it for your own good because only a PC socialist knows what is right.

But I thought socialism was about helping the poor, not lining the wallets of well-paid public servants... Oh, sorry, that's just the PR slogans. God forbid they should act on them!
 
Machjo
#5
A little point about socialism. I do sympathise with the idea, even though I see it as impracticable. What turns me off however is the lip service socialists give to their own ideas.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#6
HRCs need to be restricted to work and housing. Beyond that, the nanny state ought to stay home, watch hockey games, and smoke pot.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#7
I guess HRCs are just too remote for most of us, despite the injustice, we simply yawn because they don't affect us yet. I had no idea how thuggish they were until Levant's book came out.
 
taxslave
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

A little point about socialism. I do sympathise with the idea, even though I see it as impracticable. What turns me off however is the lip service socialists give to their own ideas.

I do too, to an extent. Rampant Capitalism is not the answer either. Socialism as practiced in Canada is mostly control freaks wanting to impose their views on every segment of society. Free thought or enterprise is discouraged, all must be for their version of the collective good.
 
SirJosephPorter
#9
Colpy mentioned this book to me a while ago. I had heard of Ezra Levant before that (in the context of Mohammed cartoons). While I did not know much more about him (I did support his right to publish the Mohammed cartoons), I looked him up after Colpy mentioned it to me.

Levant is a right wing extremist by any measure. He supports Quebec separation and Alberta separation from Canada. He is (or at least was) a strong, committed member of the Alliance Party.

To me, anything Levant says is suspect. The source taints the message. I don’t know much about HRC; at least at some level they seem to perform a useful function. But those who criticize HRC may have some substance in their argument, I don’t know.

However, I do know that when they have a spokesperson like Ezra Levant making the case against HRC, they will not be taken seriously. Levant has a big credibility problem. If they can get a reputable journalist look into HRC and come up with a similar report, that will be taken seriously.

But with Ezra Levant, it is one more case of a right wing journalist writing a right wing book. Yawn.
 
captain morgan
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post




However, I do know that when they have a spokesperson like Ezra Levant making the case against HRC, they will not be taken seriously. Levant has a big credibility problem. If they can get a reputable journalist look into HRC and come up with a similar report, that will be taken seriously.

But with Ezra Levant, it is one more case of a right wing journalist writing a right wing book. Yawn.

Mark Steyn is the reputable journalist you seek. Both Levant and Steyn are the only people that have successfully defended themselves against the HRC(s).

Too bad your judgment is clouded by politics. You'd quickly realize that this issue has zero to do with political stripe.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#11
I don't agree with most of Levant's politics, but discerning people don't shoot the messenger. You give him a hearing and see if he makes sense. Otherwise we become like the dog that barks at people with brown shoes.

At the bottom of his web page Levant said he has spent $100,000 and a thousand hours fighting HRCs. Others have been cowed, HRCs have sent an 80 year old man to jail for 9 months for a "crime". Who knew of such appalling things? The mainstream media never reported it.

Because he is a pit bull he can fight them, and this time he is the little guy getting his licks in against an oppressive bureaucracy. HRC people seem so calm, so reasonable, how can you oppose them? Sometimes you need a bully to fight a bully.
 
Ron in Regina
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

I guess HRCs are just too remote for most of us, despite the injustice, we simply yawn because they don't affect us yet. I had no idea how thuggish they were until Levant's book came out.


They don't affect you (or someone you know) until they do. A former
employee of ours was also a marriage commissioner, and a HRC dragged
him, and his reputation, and livelihood, and his pocketbook through the
mud on a totally connived situation. It was (& still is) very ugly.

He gave up defending himself when he could no longer financially afford
to defend himself, took his fine on top of his now damaged reputation,
and walked away.

Orville's story goes back to one phone call, where he said something along
the lines of, "I'm sorry, but I can't help you, but here's the name & # of
someone who can." That's all it took for a HRC. The person that Orville
recommended did perform that ceremony, by the way.

Regina marriage commissioner ordered to pay complainants for discrimination
 
DaSleeper
#13
As Marriage commissioner it was his duty to perform the civil ceremony.......but since he provided an alternate.....I think the charge by the complainants and the HRC ....and the fine is just pure vindictiveness and should be appealed......
 
Ron in Regina
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

As Marriage commissioner it was his duty to perform the civil ceremony.......but since he provided an alternate.....I think the charge by the complainants and the HRC ....and the fine is just pure vindictiveness and should be appealed......


Yeah...there's more to the story than the newspaper article. Orville was a
Commissioner for about a 1/4 of a century before the law changed making
Gay Marriage legal (and that was a century overdue), but with his religious
beliefs he made it very clear that same-sex marriage was against his beliefs
and that if he would be forced to perform them, he'd just retire.

He was told to do exactly what he did. Politely explain that it was against
his belief system, but refer whomever inquired to one of the Commissioners
that would perform that ceremony. He did what he was told to do, and was
hung out to dry. By the time you get to the point of paying the $2500 fine
which goes to the complaintant, 1/2 of your retirement fund is gone. No
Judge, no Jury.
 
Colpy
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Colpy mentioned this book to me a while ago. I had heard of Ezra Levant before that (in the context of Mohammed cartoons). While I did not know much more about him (I did support his right to publish the Mohammed cartoons), I looked him up after Colpy mentioned it to me.

Levant is a right wing extremist by any measure. He supports Quebec separation and Alberta separation from Canada. He is (or at least was) a strong, committed member of the Alliance Party.

To me, anything Levant says is suspect. The source taints the message. I donít know much about HRC; at least at some level they seem to perform a useful function. But those who criticize HRC may have some substance in their argument, I donít know.

However, I do know that when they have a spokesperson like Ezra Levant making the case against HRC, they will not be taken seriously. Levant has a big credibility problem. If they can get a reputable journalist look into HRC and come up with a similar report, that will be taken seriously.

But with Ezra Levant, it is one more case of a right wing journalist writing a right wing book. Yawn.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand (I'm straining to be polite here), climb down from your high horse, and learn something about HRCs.

Ezra Levant, despite the fact he is NOT a low-life Liberal, and may not agree with your views, is an articulate defender of free speech, and the ONLY guy (before Mark Steyn, look HIM up, another damn right-winger) to have the cojones to take on the HRCs.

Here's a bulletin for you: your rights are often better protected by the right than by the left.

When I reached a certain age and my brain stem became fully connected, I realized that the left, the Nanny State, the PC idiots, the people who believe we have a right not to be offended, the gun grabbers, those that wished all power to the state; I realized they were MORE of a threat to individual rights than the non-interventionist right.

Sometimes your attitude is irritating in the extreme.
 
SirJosephPorter
#16
Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand (I'm straining to be polite here), climb down from your high horse, and learn something about HRCs.

Sometimes your attitude is irritating in the extreme.

Temper temper, Colpy. I have never understood why so many conservatives have a thin skin. How can anything said in a polite, civil, erudite language (as I did) be irritating to somebody?

I can understand you disagreeing with me. But irritating? Why? Why do you let me get under your skin so easily? Indeed, what is it about conservatives that they have such a short fuse, such a short temper? I have observed the same thing here and on the Canada.com forum.

I have come across very few liberals who have such a short fuse. Now, if you disagree with something I said, by all means debate me, refute what I said. That is what stimulates the debate. But irritating? Why would anything I say make you angry? Why do you give me so much power over you?

Now me, no matter what you say, it won't make me angry nor would I find it irritating. If you use abusive, insulting, filthy language, I will simply stop debating you (as I have stopped debating members of my fan club here). But there really is nothing that you can say that I would find irritating, or that would make me angry.

When you let me irritate you, let me anger you, let me get under your skin, you give me too much power over you. I don’t deserve (nor desire) that power.
 
YukonJack
+1
#17
SirJosephPorter, the Canadian Charter guarantees everyone in Canada all the human rights one can wish for. You said so yourself, many times, albeit maybe not by the same words.

The Human Rights Commissions, therefore, by definition are redundant and otiose bunches of freeloaders.

They represent what is truly wrong with the world: political correctness and its twin, hypocrisy.
 
SirJosephPorter
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

SirJosephPorter, the Canadian Charter guarantees everyone in Canada all the human rights one can wish for. You said so yourself, many times, albeit maybe not by the same words.

The Human Rights Commissions, therefore, by definition are redundant and otiose bunches of freeloaders.

They represent what is truly wrong with the world: political correctness and its twin, hypocrisy.

Yukon Jack, as I understand it, HRC serves a useful purpose; it acts as an alternative to the courts for minor matters involving human rights.

HRC is cheaper and quicker than the courts. So people can settle their disputes quickly in HRC, with relatively few expenses involved. I assume in many case it works out quite well.

However, nobody is bound by HRC verdicts. If one of the parties does not agree with the verdict, he is always free to appeal to the courts and take it through the court system.

As I understand, HRC was set up to bring the justice process closer to the average person. It is performing quite well in that respect. Are there problems with it? I donít know, maybe there are, I am not an expert in HRC. But again, I wouldnít take the word of Levant that there are problems.

If CBC, Globe and Mail etc. do an investigative article about HRC and come to the conclusion that there are indeed serious problems with it, I will believe it. But I wouldnítí take Ezra Levant's word for it.
 
Tonington
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Yukon Jack, as I understand it, HRC serves a useful purpose; it acts as an alternative to the courts for minor matters involving human rights.

Human rights...minor issue...I think not.

Quote:

HRC is cheaper and quicker than the courts. So people can settle their disputes quickly in HRC, with relatively few expenses involved. I assume in many case it works out quite well.

Cheaper if you're the complainant. Not so if you're the respondant, and the money you spent can't be recouped.

Quote:

However, nobody is bound by HRC verdicts. If one of the parties does not agree with the verdict, he is always free to appeal to the courts and take it through the court system.

Right... they're only bound by the orders the HRC requests from judges after a decision is made. And then if you break that order, you can be fined and/or jailed.

Semantics.

Quote:

As I understand, HRC was set up to bring the justice process closer to the average person. It is performing quite well in that respect. Are there problems with it? I donít know, maybe there are, I am not an expert in HRC. But again, I wouldnít take the word of Levant that there are problems.

You don't have to take the word of Levant. Investigate how they work and see for yourself.

Quote:

If CBC, Globe and Mail etc. do an investigative article about HRC and come to the conclusion that there are indeed serious problems with it, I will believe it. But I wouldnítí take Ezra Levant's word for it.

Ahh. So it has to be your brand of journalism, otherwise you can't trust the quality of the investigative reporting? That's assinine. You get only one side of many stories.

In any event, this is why you should investigate for yourself. It's not hard. It's worthwhile. Citizens can't count on the fifth estate to keep us informed anymore. They are too partisan, and too focussed on their target audience. It's tunnel vision.
 
YukonJack
#20
SirJosephPorter, let us not kid each other.

If you are a boss and promote the best deserving person who is not female/gay/black/native/handicapped etc., and the case goes to a Human Rights Commission, you WILL BE labelled as a .... (place current most favourite word to destroy) and there is NOTHING you can do.

There is nothing useful about Human Rights Commissions, except for those who are too stupid to succeed on their own.

The average person can not afford to go through the court system. Even people who are relatively wealthy (on their own merit) have hard time to go to court, so they just accede and give the freeloading hypocrits their victory.

Can you name just one member of any Human Right Commission who is a decent human being?

Can anyone?
 
YukonJack
#21
SirJosephPorter, time and time again you have proudly declared that you are totally, happily and blissfully ignorant about Rush Limbaugh, Townhall, Washington Times, Toronto Sun, FOXNews, Ezra Levant and basically anyone else who you haven't the slightest idea about, by personal experience, just because you heard it somewhere. Time and time your totally uninformed opinion about the entities mentioned above proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you NEVER listened to Limbaugh, visited Townhall, read Washington Post or Toronto Sun (maybe) and it is painfully obvious that you NEVER watched FOXNews probably because it costs some money to subscribe to it.

There are those of us who do not ignorantly dismiss an opposing opinion. I would never dismiss a blog or paper or TV channel that I might disagree with as you do, before I gave them the courtesy and common sense to listen to them.

You would do yourself a favour by reading what Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn have to say. You know, be 'fair and balanced'? Sorry, that's a FOXNews slogan, which you've obviously never seen on TV.
 
gerryh
#22
As far as levant is concerned.... he's a rascist....plain and simple.... I laughed when I got the mail requesting money to help him in his HRC fight....I celebrated when the western standard shut down, and I was bummed out when the HRC cleared him.
 
Spade
#23
Levant is a provocateur.
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Time and time your totally uninformed opinion about the entities mentioned above proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you NEVER listened to Limbaugh, visited Townhall,

Sorry Yukon Jack, but I have mentioned it before. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh (I havenít listened to him in a while), I regularly cruise the right wing websites such as worldnetdaily or Townhall. Not because I agree with them or I think they talk sense, but just to see what the other side is saying. If you donít want to believe me, that is your problem, not mine.

Anyway, I found something very interesting about Townhall and other far right publications. When Somalia hostage crises was going on, the far right publications were full of condemnation of Obama, how Obama was being a wimp, being wish washy etc. Comparisons were made to Carter during Iran hostage crises. Every day there used to be at least 2 or 3 articles in Townhall discussing the crises and condemning Obama roundly for the way he was handling the crises.

When the crises was over and it turned out that Obama handled it perfectly, in a text book fashion, right wing blogs all of a sudden went silent. Not a pip out of them. Townhall mentioned the news in passing, that was it. Not a single columnist wrote an article on it. Some of them tried to credit the Navy and trash Obama, but they themselves must have realized how lame that sounded. It didnít last long; the far right publications all of a sudden went silent on the subject.

A week before that, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich were shouting at the top of their voice, 24/7, what a terrible president Obama is, how badly he is handling the crises. Again, Newt developed laryngitis after the crises was over.

There is the golden rule, ďif you cannot say something good about somebody, just donít say anything.Ē The far right follows a slightly modified rule, ďif you cannot say anything bad about Obama, just donít say anything.Ē
 
DaSleeper
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

Levant is a provocateur.

Provocateurs are needed in a free society.....whether you agree with them or not.....to get people thinking for themselves .....or else we all turn into sheeple....

How does the line go?? ...I may disagrees with what you say...but I will fight for your right to say it??
 
SirJosephPorter
#26
How does the line go?? ...I may disagrees with what you say...but I will fight for your right to say it??

Quite right, DaSleeper. But it is incomplete. I would complete it as follows:

I may disagree with what you say...but I will fight for your right to say it. However, I donít have to agree with you or even listen to what you are saying. I certainly am not obliged to take what you say seriously.
 
DaSleeper
#27
Why do you feel the need to put your own spin.....even on a quote by Voltaire...
 
lone wolf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Why do you feel the need to put your own spin.....even on a quote by Voltaire...

Pomposity....
 
SirJosephPorter
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Why do you feel the need to put your own spin.....even on a quote by Voltaire...

It is necessary, DaSleeper. Evidently some posters here seem to think that just because Levant has the right to say what he wants to say, the rest of us should take what the says seriously. That represents a basic misunderstanding of Voltaireís saying.
 
DaSleeper
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Pomposity....

But WolfWhile I do agree with his addendum to Voltaire's quote.......I don't agree with much of what he posts either

If anyone can't understand what I mean by that....I don' t have a clue either
 

Similar Threads

11
Ontario HRC Secrecy, Ezra L cont.
by dumpthemonarchy | Apr 27th, 2009
22
Ezra Levant Proves He's a Moron
by TenPenny | Feb 18th, 2006
4
Sense of Humour
by Cosmo | Jun 6th, 2005