Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Ezra Levant versus the Human Rights Commission

ENGLISH COMMON LAW originally developed as an explicitly Catholic adaptation of barbarian legal customs, based on the universal standards of factuality, fairness, and equity. Although far from perfect, this legal system is fundamentally opposed to the concept of "might makes right". Enlightenment law systems reject these Christian notions, and instead merely are used to impose policy. 'Enlightened' law systems, like we see in Marxism, Naziism, the European Union, and even in the law systems developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and class-action lawsuits, care hardly for the concepts of actual responsibility, disinterest, and equity, but rather are means to another end.

We in the United States, unless we are hockey fans, hardly ever think of Canada at all, and if we do think of Canada, we usually think of the place as being a "nice" country. 'Nice' is a nice, but bland word, only half a compliment and nearly half an insult. If Canada were ever to become a tyranny, we here in the U.S. would probably ignore it, for it would be a 'nice' tyranny; bland, and not flashy like militarist dictatorships of old.

The Human Rights Commission of the Canadian province of Alberta is a 'nice' and bland implementation of tyranny, in that it explicitly ignores the concepts of fairness, actual guilt, and equity, and instead is used as a tool for political persecution of others. Journalist Ezra Levant has recently been called before the Commission for causing offense to a Muslim. I ought to note that the way these laws are written, it is impossible for anyone to legally offend, say, a Catholic, but rather only certain marxist-defined protected classes seem to have standing in these courts.

Levant is fighting the Commission on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Since the press was not allowed in his hearing, and the Canadian press in general, being tied closely to the government, has little interest in the case, Levant himself has posted videos of his own defense on YouTube.

Here is his opening statement:


  1. When I was in high school, on the list of required reading were the books 1984 by Orwell, and Brave New World by Huxley; these novels respectively portrayed what could be called hard and soft totalitarianism. In the former, the people are bludgeoned into submission by violence, and in the later, people are placated into submission by drugs, sex, and entertainment. In reality, it tends to be a bit of both, as we see throughout the Western world.

  2. Dear Muslims Against Sharia,

    Thanks for sending the link.

    I don't know enough about Sharia law to have formed an honest opinion about it. However, since Sharia has been around for a very long time, and since I perceive Muslims as being rather formidable, I can't imagine that the legal system would survive this long unless it has considerable merit.

    I do know quite a bit about English Common Law, and since Englishmen and Americans historically have also been rather a rather formidable bunch, it cannot have survived for centuries unless it also has considerable merit. I see the Common Law as a highly refined, rational, and common-sensical legal system, which is worth defending to the utmost degree.

    Modern 'Positive' law is not rational, but rather is based on the principle of "might makes right"; it only survives because modern men have become effete and complacent and have been unwilling to vigorously oppose it.

  3. Let us make it simple. Sharia is the opposite of democracy.