... Writing in the Nov. 28 edition of Meshwar, a free newspaper circulated in southwest Ontario, editor Nazih Khatatba approved the Nov. 18 Har Nof massacre as a “courageous and qualitative” operation.Another Muslim scumbag!
The attack “ushers a new phase which should properly be called the phase of the new Fedayeen, fighters who sacrifice their life in battle,” wrote Khatatba, who is also a board member of Palestine House in Mississauga. ...
... the urge to litigate disagreement is never far from the surface in contemporary discourse. So both Ezra Levant and I find ourselves back in court yet again.
... In that sense, Dr. Mann is, indeed, a fraud. It is a fascinating legal question whether a man guilty of serial misrepresentation can, in fact, be defamed. But it’s not that fascinating, and certainly not worth the court’s time and seven-figure legal bills.
... it’s a pretty basic free speech case. Dr. Mann, whatever his other gifts, is an inveterate name-caller.
... In court, our notably unimpressive judge Natalia Combs-Greene declared, even before we got anywhere near the trial, that she was with Dr. Mann: “The court agrees with the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs. To place Plaintiff’s name in the same sentence with Sandusky (a convicted pedophile) is clearly outrageous.”
... Mann is entitled to insult me ... and anyone else who has the temerity not to prostrate themselves before him. It is remarkable that an American jurist is too obtuse to grasp this
... Mr Awan said something that was not so and was exposed in court for so doing, and in a free society Ezra ought to be well within his rights to characterize such a person as he pleases.
... What else? Awan complains that Levant called him an anti-Semite. Big deal. Awan called Levant a racist. He’s called me and my book racist, Islamophobic, virulent and hateful. Likewise: big deal.
... If you’re going to be a partisan warrior in the public arena you need, as the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle likes to put it, “insensitivity training.” Miss Shaidle also argues that the matter of honour was better handled before the libel laws replaced dueling. When a fake Nobel laureate and a frontman for a terrorism-sympathizer are suing for their “reputation,” I’m inclined to agree. If Dr. Mann’s up for it, how about hockey sticks at dawn?However you cut it, being sued in a real court is far better than being persecuted by a kangaroo "human rights" tribunal. But either way it's expensive and, with clueless and/or ideological judges and juries, risky for defendants. The bar seems to be set way too low for getting these anti-free-speech and hurt-feelings lawsuits into court in the first place.
Many of them were indistinguishable from the panhandlers who clutter up the streets: ... Others are under the impression that — you’ll never guess — “Jews own the media,” and say so on camera.Only slightly less pathetic were the lazy, useless, politically correct cops who tried to remove Ezra "because it was easier".
... this protest was heavily promoted by the Ontario Federation of Labor ...[who] relied upon (paid?) glorified homeless people to act as their brown shirts, to protest SUN’s right to bring the Mafia-like corruption on reserves to light. ...
[Karen Sellick]:Couldn’t agree more. Though I still think, like Ezra, that the meddling liberal social engineers responsible for enacting the “human rights” codes actually did have good intentions. They always do, don’t they? Good intentions are what mesmerize liberals - to the point that they are incapable of thinking them through to their logical, very often rotten conclusions.
... bulldog ... Ezra Levant describes the human rights system as "a beautiful idea -that failed." He credits it with the "noble goal of eliminating real discrimination ..."
Wrong.
Human rights codes have fabricated a phoney "right" to be free from discrimination and used it to override a panoply of genuine human rights, including: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of contract and control over one's private property. There can be no such thing as the right to violate someone else's rights. It's a contradiction in terms. The only solution to this seeming paradox is the complete repeal of the human rights codes, not mere changes to the enforcement mechanisms.
[Chris Scafer]:
Now that Tim Hudak, leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, has backtracked on his plan to scrap the province’s Human Rights Tribunal if elected, the focus of debate has turned to reform.
[...]
... if history has taught us one lesson, it is that a government that is powerful enough to outlaw discrimination by individuals is also a government powerful enough to compel discrimination when the public mood of the majority changes. This is why Ontario’s human rights system must be abolished.
