Practice Vs Preach
This is ironical.
A while back, this article appeared in Fast Forward Weekly:
A while later, a former employee of the magazine (I assume the Western Standard?) wrote a letter in response to the article.
According to DustMyBroom this was Ezra Levant's reaction:
Apparently Ezra contacted the rag to get an apology and retraction for the article and the published letter, didn't get it and is now suing Fast Forward Weekly for the Lowering the standard article and letter writer Terlesky for a combined total of $100,000 for libel.
But that's not what I'm on about now because before I read blog entries, I read the comments to them, and this one caught my eagle eye because the commenter pretends that suing for libel is different than making a mean speech complaint to the CHRC:
There is a world of difference between this and the CIC vs Steyn/Macleans situation. Justified or not, Ezra has chosen to take his complaint to a genuine court of law, with rules of evidence, and neutral procedures, and (almost certainly) an unbiased judge, where the burden of proof is squarely on him. HE must prove to the court that he has been wronged. And HE must pay his own legal bills. And if he fails to prove his case, he will almost certainly be liable for the defendant's costs. None of those conditions apply in the Star Chamber of the HRC, which is why the CIC took their temper tantrum there and not to a real court. (They did that in the past and got punted, so they learned that lesson.) I don't know if Ezra has a case, and frankly I don't much care. But at least he's going through legitimate channels to seek redress.
In fact, there is practically no difference at all in Canada between suing someone for libel and making a mean speech complaint to the CHRC. Accusing someone of libel, what is so famously known as libel chill, is pretty much all one need do in Canada these days to come out on top. Ditto making a mean speech complaint to the CHRC.
So the comment above is really quite false.
Frankly (pun intended) it is quite disingenuous for Ezra Levant et al (Mark Steyn and ALL you Neo-Con clowns, come on down) to pretend that the Muslim 4 are doing business any differently in making a complaint to the CHRC re an article of Steyn's that appeared in Macleans magazine than is Ezra Levant in suing for libel.
Libel chill is a pretty big threat to freedom of speech in this country and always has been - witness Conrad Black's use of it over the years - and the accused are wise to fold like a house of cards to avoid losing the farm.
Go ahead - ask a lawyer. Or ask Ezra Levant. Because, of course, he is a lawyer and knows all of this fully well -which is no doubt why he is suing for libel.
Only in Canada.
