It was clear that Bristow was off-base in his praise for the CHRC because he was, apparently, according to him, dealing with real criminals and real criminal activity. It was a matter for real police and real criminal courts, not for "Human Rights" Commissions and their kangaroo courts run by Charter rights abusing amateurs and activists.
Bristow’s piece needed serious rebuttal from a knowledgeable source; and yesterday, as I knew he would, Ezra Levant stepped up to clarify matters:
And there’s much more (and).
During the 1980s and 1990s, CSIS -- that is, the taxpayers of Canada -- helped organize and build Canada's leading group of white supremacists. Funding, strategy, organization support -- all of it came from the government.
Their point man was Grant Bristow. He was one of Canada's neo-Nazi leaders, who worked as an agent for CSIS. Without Bristow, Canada's neo-Nazis would have been less-organized, less prominent and more poorly led. Thanks, CSIS.
Now, I understand the need for undercover police work to stop some tough-to-fight crimes. And there might even have been a few cases where the other neo-Nazis that Bristow met were genuine threats of violence. They probably were. But there's an important moral and practical difference between sending in some infiltrator and building up the biggest neo-Nazi group in the country. At what point is the cure worse than the disease?
Bristow knows nothing about the CHRC -- he was never a complainant under its sections; he never worked for it; in fact, the only possible relationship he has with it is as an offender of its thought crimes provision, he himself having generated an enormous amount of "hate", while undercover.
Bristow's Op-Ed -- besides being a self-serving piece of revisionist history (revisionism being something that the Heritage Front was always good at) -- conflates real crimes, crimes of violence, with "thought crimes" that the CHRC seeks to police.
Now, if only the ‘Post’ would publish Ezra’s piece to correct the record.