Dhimmi Watch: Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons

March 30, 2006

Western Standard sued for publishing cartoons

An update on the victimization of the courageous Ezra Levant, one of the few Canadian media figures to stand up for free speech. From the Western Standard blog (with thanks to all who sent this in):

Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this.
But that's the point -- this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media.

The hand-written scrawl and the spelling errors were what first disgusted me with the suit; but the arguments were what really got me. The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it.

He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.

Here is a letter I sent out to our e-mail list, explaining our legal situation.

Here is the formal response I shall file with the human rights commission tomorrow.

And here is where you can chip in to our legal defence fund if you want to support us. Our lawyers tell me we'll likely win, but it could cost us up to $75,000 to do so -- and the case against us is being prosecuted by government employees using tax dollars.

We're a small, independent magazine and we don't have deep pockets to fight off nuisance suits, so please chip in if you can.

Posted by Robert at March 30, 2006 2:05 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

How long do we keep talking?

Posted by: Foehammer

at March 30, 2006 2:33 PM

This case is very interesting.
On the one hand, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the right to freedom of expression, but on the other, Canadian courts allow more speech suppression in the name of political correctness than is the case in other western countries.
I wrote in
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010638.php
about the broad theories underlying a lot of western hate speech legislation.
Since the human rights legislation is concerned with harm based justifications, truth is usually no defense to prosecution.

Posted by: Peter

at March 30, 2006 2:37 PM

He's Canuck, but he'll do as new managing editor of National Review. At least he'll fight.

Posted by: longtime lurker

at March 30, 2006 3:00 PM

lurker:

Don't be so sure that some deep-pocketed Albertans won't help Ezra out before it comes to that. Western Canadians are pretty independently minded, many are proudly Christian (pro-Israel, not CPT-types), and the outfit that has brought suit may not be all that sophisticated or well-funded.

Posted by: waterdragon52

at March 30, 2006 3:17 PM

Waterdragon52, which is exactly why I found Rich Lowry's capitulation at NR so spineless. You mean there's no rich capitalist conservative in the USA who wouldn't agree to foot NR's legal bills in fighting CAIR? I just can't imagine that, and worse, that Lowry didn't ask. In fact, a few rich guys footing NR and some other causes might well be able to bankrupt CAIR. We saw in the case of anti-CAIR that they're afraid of what discovery might reveal. Let's roll!

Posted by: longtime lurker

at March 30, 2006 4:29 PM

Is the loser required to pay all court costs and legal fees, as in many U.S. suits? If so, is there any requirement for this saudi soharwardy clown to put up some kind of a bond to ensure court costs will be paid 'just in case' he loses? (I believe that the more of these kinds of cases can be brought into western courts, the more light that is shone upon islam, and the more western judges and juries can be forced to see the degree to which islam tries to undermine our most basic values as a society, the better.)

Posted by: Infidel33

at March 30, 2006 6:44 PM

The PC mind set out of control, when Mohummed Elmasry went on TV and declared "All Israelis over 18 are valid targets for muder by suicie bombers " there was little anger by Muslims that Elmasry was falsely representing Islam's message of peace.
For three days the media got the same answer from Elmasry about his free-speech Rights and that he asserted the claim on TV , but once the Police were asked to review the video for a "Hate-crime" that promotes violence against a identifiable group the story switched to him being attacked from "Islamophobia" .
Elmasry then said his comment was "out of context" and that he was only repeating the views of Palestinians in Canada , and many Muslims came to his aid and supported his free-speech under our Charter Of Rights .
Elmasry kept his job at the Islamic org. he claimed to speak for, and other org.'s claimed it was unfair to wipe away 30 years of hard work just because of one comment taken out of context to smear his image.

The real issue was that this was one time when he was actually caught on video spewing his antisemitism , in the past he was alleged to have spewed this hate at Mosques ( radical linked ) or at Muslim only functions.
Muslims should be insulted that they aren't expected to live by the same standards as non-muslims and Judges perceive them as predisposed to violence and hate and very seldom give a harsh sentence when convicted of a crime .

The CIC which Elmasry belongs to also posted a notice about the Apostate in Afghanistan and denounced the killing of ex-muslim for non-blasphemous charges against them.

So i guess Blasphemous murders are OK .

And THEY say we just don't understand Islam and are the ignorant islamophobes.

Posted by: ala-sux

at March 30, 2006 10:10 PM

Please read the details. This man is being sued by a government agency because a Muslim complained. Muslim doesn't have to spend a dime ---->>>

ADDENDUM: In response to various commenters, unfortunately, even if we are successful in the human rights commission, we will not be compensated for our legal fees. It's not like a real court, where an unsuccessful plaintiff would be ordered to pay a successful defendant's costs. So even if we win, we lose -- the process is the penalty. Worse than that, the radical imam who is suing us doesn't have to put up a dime -- the commission uses tax dollars to pay lawyers and other inquisitors to go at us directly. Human rights tribunals themselves are illiberal institutions. Read my larger brief, linked above.

Posted by: dennisw

at March 31, 2006 1:56 AM

We cant sit back and hope for our media to battle this one for us, we need the grassroots movements that are springing up, to create a united voice, lets face it. If our freedoms are to be eroded anyway. sooner it was done by nationalist far right against Islam, than loose to Islam.

Posted by: dizzyfatplonka

at March 31, 2006 7:07 AM

Half of Canadian human rights complaints are dismissed immediately for lack of merit. Many don't make it past initial investigation. Maybe there should be a judicial inquiry as to why this complaint was given enough credence to go all the way to court.

Posted by: justsayno2islam

at March 31, 2006 12:38 PM