Hate Crimes in Australia and America

The International Free Press Society has a video up entitled: "Australia, exactly as Canada does, criminalizes opinion of Islam."

As far as I can tell, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Australia is similar to the Provincial Human Rights Commissions in Canada.

An Australian pastor has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself against a Muslim group which says he vilified Islam. The Muslim group took him to court based on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

His only crime was to read quotes directly from the Koran during a seminar on Islam.

His conviction has since been overturned by the Australian Supreme Court, and several states in Australia have dropped this law, but Victoria has only made amendments.

He talks with Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network and says the United States is in danger of such "hate crimes" laws. A "hate crimes" Bill HR 254 has been introduced to Congress, and is now just a matter of votes. 

As I keep saying, as long as Ezra Levant fights the symptoms (the HRCs) rather than the causes, which I have identified as high immigration and the concomitant multiculturalism (and especially Muslims), then a few decades down the road he will wonder what went wrong with his valiant fight.

Green Pundits

There's not much room for humor at Our Changing Landscape, but here is something that made me laugh. Writes Diana West:

At what point do said pundits change the color of their Twitter avatars (Joe Scarborough) and their blog backgrounds (Andrew Sullivan) back from Islam green? And will they ever apologize for the fuss?

Both these "pundits" have added the color green to their sites in solidarity with the Iranian "revolution." Diana West's article debunks all that by saying that what's happening in Iran isn't so much a revolution as an intra-Islamic power struggle.

Also, green is the color of Islam. There is nothing revolutionary about that. I remember asking myself why Mousavi's party was using the color green if he was staging a revolution. The answer is, he isn't staging a revolution.

Even If The HRCs are Dismantled, There Is Much More Work To Be Done

In my previous post I wrote:

As long as high levels of immigration from non-Western countries is the norm in Canada, I argue that there will be an endless stream of visible minorities who are potential HRC case filers, and will thus keep the HRCs going.

I should qualify that. Even if the HRCs are successfully dismantled with Levant's incessant activities, systems and institutions which do the work of the HRCs (affirmative action is one example) will still exist as long as there is the population group that demands these kinds of services.

That is what I meant by "underlying problems." If Levant doesn't address these problems, then dismantling the HRCs will have become a futile exercise.

Congratulations to Ezra Levant

Congratulations to Ezra Levant on the birth of his new baby this past weekend. This must come at an especially happy time for him, given his enormously successful book Shakedown, and the continuous screw-ups by the major players of the HRCs .

I hope Levant does read this blog, and takes note of my slant on all of this, which is that the HRCs are just a symptom of the underlying problems. Almost all my posts at Our Changing Landscape from May 16, 2009 onwards have been a detailed analysis of these underlying problems, with my moment of epiphany on May 28th which I titled: "The Human Rights Commissions Are Here To Stay." As long as high levels of immigration from non-Western countries is the norm in Canada, I argue that there will be an endless stream of visible minorities who are potential HRC case filers, and will thus keep the HRCs going.

Levant has made a courageous start to make Canada a better place for his infant child. I hope he goes a step further by attacking this underlying problem as well. As I've said, he is the ideal candidate for this.

Prime Stoppers of Free Speech Are Muslims

Here is a great speech given by Diana West, who as a journalist is understandably concerned about free speech issues. She is the Vice President of the International Free Press Society, and was recently in Copenhagen for a conference on "Free Speech and Islam."

As I've been saying all along, Levant cannot ignore the main reason that he had to spend three years fighting the HRCs is because he published the Mohammed cartoons, and Muslims took him to the HRCs.

The multicultural/immigration link that I have been writing about was succinctly and eloquently addressed by Diana West in her speech. And especially the Muslim link.

Also, I can't believe that this discussion has been going on for almost twenty years, and Levant, immersed as he is in a multicultural and immigrant affair, still hasn't caught on.

He thinks that free speech denunciations just come out of thin air. But, there is a history behind all this. Something I have been recommending he study for a while now, if he wants to have lasting effect in his battles against those trying to stop free speech.

Levant's Quixotic Battle

Ezra Levant started his personal journey to fight the HRCs because he got caught in their machinery.

As I kept writing over the last few week, a mere observer like me (who’s not a politician or even a political analyst) managed to pick up on the salient points of the HRCs, whereas Levant still doesn't get it.

This is what I wrote about my moment of epiphany on the HRCs while watching a debating panel on the HRCs:

[T]here was nothing new or insightful that this group brought [to the debate].

The only thing that happened was that I had an epiphany.

The HRCs are not going anywhere. If anything, they will just be fine-tuned to avoid the wrath of ordinary folks who may have realized their fraudulent nature from Levant's and others' exposures .

I got this affirmation when an older black woman, in all sincerity, asked when Canada was going to change the underlying problems of inequality and barriers to minorities, since the HRCs are only there to report the problems that this unequal society produces.

The black woman, with her strong Caribbean accent, was clearly an immigrant.

The main purpose of the HRCs is not to silence free speech, which is the battle that Levant is immersed in. Their main point is to follow the mandates of the Multiculturalism Act.

The Ontario Multiculturalism Act is responsible for:

Recognizing the pluralistic nature of Ontario society, to stress the full participation of all Ontarians as equal members of the community, encouraging the sharing of cultural heritage while affirming those elements held in common by all residents.

What the government-controlled HRCs are doing is simply fulfilling the mandates of this Act, and specifically the "participation of all [Canadians] as equal members of the community."

But, there is a second twist to this. While the Multiculturalism Act protects the "pluralistic" nature of Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act continues to provide an unremitting source of people who make up this "pluralistic" society, and especially those who would require these government-mandated controls that ensures they participate as equal members of society; i.e. visible minorities.

Perhaps it is too much to ask Levant to take on these two behemoths: Immigration and Multiculturalism, both of which are ingrained in the government's laws and polices.

But, it is far better to be truthful about the problem, than to live in some kind of euphoria and excitement doing a Don Quixote-type of battle.

If (I still don’t think the HRCs will go anywhere) the HRCs are dismantled, other instituions will still stay in place, doing exactly what the HRCs are doing but in more subtle ways.

One very recent issue that has come up in a study by a diversity-promoting organization, DiverseCity:The Greater Toronto Leadership Project, is the under representation of minority leaders in Toronto’s public and private sectors. DiverseCity is calling for measures to rectify this problem.

This sounds innocuous enough, not like the hard-line HRCs. But the aim is the same: to change, by diversifying, an existing natural distribution of leaders.

DiverseCity’s funders include the Government of Ontario (and also other governmental bodies indirectly through their partner Toronto City Summit Alliance).

Levant is just scratching the surface with his HRC battles, and not only that, his focus on freedoms of speech and expression (and hate speech) is extremely narrow.

Maybe in five, six or ten years time, Levant will be sued by an HRC-type institution, again. Maybe this time, it will be some visible minority co-worker, who feels he got bypassed for a leadership position because of his ethnic and racial makeup, which Levant received. Of course, Levant says he is a minority (Jewish), but blacks, Asians and Hispanics will always trump Jewish in these battles. And institutions such as DiverseCity will be ready to fight for them to the bitter end.

Here is an interview with Pajamas Media where Levant, breezily, talks about "getting along, regardless of race, sex, etc.." and "life's little grievances and setbacks." The HRCs and their quieter sister organizations certainly don't think their cases are "life's little grievances and setbacks." Their grievances are so big, to them, that they are willing to bully a whole country and its institutions to get their way.

Toronto: Fourth Most Livable City in the World

Toronto was deemed the fourth most livable city in the world, according to a recent survey. This may very well be, but I was curious to find what the survey questions were.

The detailed report is available from the Economist Intelligence Unit for a hefty $250, so I had to make do with what the news media was reporting.

Some of the criteria used to come to this conclusion include: health care, education, infrastructure, culture and environment.

My short take on this is that all of these require large amounts of public funds to function. Even culture (museum construction, film festivals, etc.) has become a major government-funded affair.

Vancouver topped the list and Calgary tied fifth with Perth (Australia), so that’s three Canadian cities in the top five. All there, I would wager, for similar reasons that Toronto made the top five.

I don’t know how Vienna (second) and Melbourne (third) fare in terms of big government, but I would think there is quite a lot of it in Vienna, being a European city.

So, I would say the survey was biased in terms of finding more socialistic, big government trends (without explicitly saying so).

But, more on this later.

The Patron Activist of this Site

I took a while trying to find a succinct phrase to head this blog. In the end, I decided anything I said would be insignificant, and why not have a patron saint of sorts, or as I call it in this post's title, a patron activist.

I think I found just the right phrase, and right person, in Geert Wilders.

Wilders has been in the news a lot these few months, and has been traveling quite a bit.

Of course, the most promising and hopeful news of all is how well his party did in the recent EU elections.

Below is the video of a recent interview he gave to an irritating Danish journalist, who asks him what he would do to with all the Muslims in the Netherlands. The interviewer asks this question twice. It seems he didn’t hear Wilders's response (or listen) the first time.

The kindness that shines through in true leaders is evident in Wilders. Besides giving all the conditions that would merit Muslim deportation from the Netherlands, he says that those who are genuine about assimilating into Dutch culture would be welcome to stay.

In fact, says Wilders, he (and the Dutch) would help them as much as possible, giving them money for education etc…

Now, in comparison, what Muslim leader would make such generous efforts to have non-Muslims (and particularly Christians and Jews) integrate into his society?

The first time the interviewer asks Wilders the above question is around the 6:11 point in the video. The second time, it is around the 7:35 point.

Which HRC Cases Had the Biggest National Coverage?

In my recent post on Ezra Levant's interview on CTV, I didn't mention the content of the interviews and concentrated on the farce of a live censorship, and my arguments as to why Levant was even invited by CTV in the first place.

One interesting point is Levant's mention of three high profile HRC cases of homosexuals going after Christian individuals or organizations.

The HRC cases that caused the biggest national stir were not the homosexual ones.

There is of course the case involving the Mohammed cartoons (against him), and the case against MacLeans for publishing an article by Mark Steyn.

And who filed these cases? Muslims.

How did Muslims get into Canada, a traditionally Christian country?

As I've been saying, the most important link that Levant can make during his fight to dismantle the HRCs is the one between the HRCs and immigration, and more specifically, between multiculturalism and immigration.

Ezra Levant’s Non-Debate with the Chief Commissar of the HRCs

The recent CTV interview of Ezra Levant posted at his website, as well as at the International Free Press Society website, was beautifully and inevitably ironic.

The Chief Commissar of the of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Jennifer Lynch, said she would not appear on CTV if it also had Levant on the show, as planned. CTV invited Levant anyway, and kept open its invitation for Lynch to debate him. Lynch still refused, but sent someone from her office instead, with the condition that Levant and he not speak at the same time. Yes, censorship from the censors.

Levant obliged, Tom Clark, the CTV interviewer, went along with the separate interviews, but you could see the sparkle in his eyes at the comedy-farce of it all, and Levant came out winning.

CTV of course disagreed with Lynch's demands based on its journalistic precepts of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. CTV is a private broadcaster, so it is independent enough to make decisions like this. Still, it is to be commended because it could have come up with any excuse to avoid controversy by having Levant on the show.

But, what if Levant had come to CTV with a different focus?

What if he said that the HRCs are there because they are trying to correct discrimination and inequality in Canada? And that the primary reason for this increased perception of discrimination is the high immigration rates into Canada of visible minorities, who are demanding governmental coercion to correct inequalities?

Steve Paiken was going in that direction in his interview with Levant a few days ago, when he asked Levant repeatedly what was wrong with trying not to offend different peoples, and punishing those who do. Levant doggedly responded by saying the HRCs are not the way.

But, the government has (and will find) other, subtle, ways to make people “nice”.

If Levant had come with that angle, I doubt even CTV would have been open enough to accept him as its guest.

That is why Levant's argument to get rid of the HRCs based on their obstruction of our freedoms of expression and speech is winning him allies in the left, and in the media.

But, once he starts getting into the sticky issues of how Canada’s very policies and fundamental institutions support the HRCs and other bodies which behave like them, primarily the immigration and multicultural ones, then everyone will do a Steve Paiken and say – Canadians just must be nice.

This is the real fight for Levant. This is the real challenge, which first he has to understand (and believe), and then embark on. It is a far less popular and a far more arduous journey, but one which will help Canada become really free again.

More Proof of Disharmony

[Click on image to see larger version]

In a previous post, I cited some examples which are contrary to Ezra Levant's harmonious multicultural society.

Here is one more. I had posted this image several posts ago, but didn't really explain its significance.

If Toronto’s multiculturalism were such an asset, why then are people literally forming whole cities of people like them?

The Chinese in Markham and the Indians in Brampton have taken over whole suburbs in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) to avoid this multicultuarl "haven" that Levant speaks about so glowingly.

What Happens When (If) Ezra Levant Has Accomplished His Goal of Dismantling the HRCs?

Christine Elliot, polled recently as the top choice for the Progressive Conservative leadership, has stated that abolishing the HRCs would "hand the Liberals the election on a silver platter." And that the PC party leaders should think twice about making the HRCs an issue in their campaign.

As always, the PC party is more liberal than anyone of us dare acknowledge.

But even if the HRCs were abolished (or fine-tuned), the political bodies of Canada, along with their ever-enlarging immigrant base, a base which Conservative Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney has said will not be reduced in the coming year, will find ways to install other HRC-type activities to fight "discrimination."

As I've stated before, the problem is not an isolated case of defunct HRCs. It is a much bigger problem of immigration and multiculturalism.

What is Ezra Levant willing to do about that?

Steve Paikin's Good-Hearted Naiveté

I wasn't going to post about Ezra Levant's recent interview at TVO. But, this uninteresting interview is now up on The International Free Press Society, which is elevating Levant's run-of-the-mill discussion as a "freedom of the press" and "freedom of expression" issue, as their website indicates.

In Levant's comments section at his website on his TVO post, there is praise after praise for his positions. There are also comments on Steve Paikin's (the TVO host) role as a devil's advocate.

Steve Paikin was no devil's advocate. He was expressing a genuine, naive and good-hearted concern, which I think many Canadians have, when he kept saying things like "you feel your identity is under attack" and especially this:

"Is it not beneficial to a society to try to reduce the amount of hate that we inspire through writings towards one another? Is that not an intrinsically good thing to do?"

Paiken’s well-taken point is: how do we deal with all these differences, these inequalities, these potentials for hurts and insults that is now so prevalent in Canadian society?

Levant was really quite unprepared to answer this question. He is stuck in his narrow fight of dismantling this fraudulent institution. And he never questions why it exists in the first place.

My answer, as I’ve indicated in many posts, is that as long as high levels of immigration of peoples of such divergent backgrounds from the traditional Canadian culture and society continues, there will be increasing governmental coercion to be "nice" to our neighbors. Dismantling the HRCs doesn’t get rid of the problem.

There is nothing wrong with being good neighbors, as Paiken innocently kept bringing up. But, if our whole governmental system is geared toward forcing people to be nice to each other, and specifically to the new comers of such divergent and different backgrounds, then we have to start asking how to stop this.

One obvious solution is to reduce (stopping is too much to ask) the number of immigrants that come into Canada.

If Levant had read my blog, and I don’t mean this facetiously since none of the other conservative bloggers and writers are bringing this up, and also read my most recent recommendation, Lawrence Auster’s The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, he would have known how to respond to Paiken.

In fact, I also invite Steve Paiken to this blog to get a clearer answer for the kinds of questions he was asking Levant.

Levant has an obligation to answer genuine questions like Paiken's and which ordinary Canadians are also asking. They sincerely want to live in harmony with their neighbors. He has entered into the fray of coercive governmental policies. He cannot avoid the issue of high immigration and the many HRC-type of activities the government is still performing.

The HRCs and Immigration: A Dual Problem

I just read Ezra Levant’s Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights. It is a clear, concise and very readable book, which any layman can pick up and learn from. It has a mixture of HRC case studies, factual and statistical information about the HRCs, and Levant’s suggestion for how to deal with this problem, which in his assessment is the complete dismantling of the Commissions.

Levant sees Canada as a society which has evolved from its racist past to what is now a tolerant, multicultural society, with many safeguards against racism, and which consequently doesn’t need the HRCs any longer.

These points deserve more attention, but suffice to say that the Canada of yonder years wasn’t nearly as racist as Levant paints it to be, and the Canada of recent years is far less harmoniously multicultural than he makes out. The recent Tamil protestors (by the thousands), the Lebanese dual citizens who are being shipped to Lebanon to vote in their elections, and Muslims filing HRC cases against MacLeans and Levant himself, expose the reality behind the harmonious multicultural Canada.

There is also a March 31, 2009 Globe and Mail article, where second generation visible minority immigrants feel less Canadian than even their parents, all this despite the country’s overwhelming attempt to accommodate them and their parents.

And a recent report by Ryerson University’s Diversity Institute showed the lack of leadership positions held by visible minority immigrants both in public and private institutions, implicitly indicating systemic discrimination in these institutions.

In the first one hundred pages of Shakedown, the majority of cases Levant gave as examples were filed by visible minorities, who felt they were not getting equal treatment because of their ethnic, racial or religious background.

In my preliminarily calculations of HRC cases filed, I’ve pointed out that the largest number came from visible minorities, not homosexuals, or women or even the disabled (except in Alberta). I’ve also shown that there is a correlation between the cases filed at the provincial HRCs by visible minorities, and the number of immigrants in that particular province.

This has led me to conclude that with increases in immigration, there is an increase in visible minorities, and a consequent increase in HRC cases filed by visible minorities.

Part of the problem of the HRCs is thus immigration.

So, what happens if Levant is successful in dismantling the HRCs? Will that reduce perceived discrimination against visible minorities? How will these minorities resolve these cases of (perceived) discrimination? How much will the government be involved in resolving these cases?

As long as there are large numbers of visible minorities, and as long as their largest source – a high immigration rate – is in place, I predict (although it is not hard to do because it has been happening for decades now) there will be endless governmental attempts, backed by special interest immigrant and visible minority groups, to make everyone "equal", and to remove "discrimination." One such example is the one I cited above, where visible minority groups are demanding that more visible minorities be placed in leadership position in both the public and corporate realms. How will this be achieved except through governmental coercion of a type of affirmative action?

Therefore, dismantling the HRCs without doing something about the biggest replenishing source of HRC applicants – immigrants - won't make the problem go away.

Levant's short-term goal of dismantling the HRCs should also include long-term solutions of immigration reform.

This will not be a popular position to take. But, to get a better understanding of the problem (and solutions), I strongly recommend that Levant read Lawrence Auster’s The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism.

To give Levant a glimpse of what this book contains, here is an excerpt:

Radical pluralism raises to a new level this threat to our liberty, since now the state will be called upon to overcome, not just the inequality of individuals, but the inequality of cultures. The inherent vastness and endlessness of such an enterprise matches the intrusiveness of the state power that must be exercised to achieve it. The signs of this new despotism are all around us:

• the de jure and de facto repression of speech dealing with racially sensitive subjects;

• the official classification and extension of privileges to people according to ethnic affiliation;

• the expansion of judicial and bureaucratic power to enforce racial quotas in more and more areas of society;

• the subjection of the American people to an unceasing barrage of propaganda telling us we are all brothers, that we must “respect all cultures,” etc., even while government policies are unleashing a wave of cultural diversity and ethnic chauvinism that is making spontaneous brotherly feeling a receding dream. In other words, the “family” that Governor Mario Cuomo keeps telling us we all belong to is really—the state.

In the Canadian context, Levant may dismantle the thoroughly disqualified, fraudulent, state-controlled HRCs, but as long as there is this “radical pluralism” of peoples maintained through immigration, we are still at the mercy of a coercive government to right the wrongs of inequality.

Vdare

What excatly is Vdare doing?

Type rest of the post here

Islam As a Flase Religion

Fr. Zakaria Botros

Here is an interesting interview Jamie Glasov of Frontpagemag had with Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros.

Glasov's main question is, "In what way can you summarize for us why you think that Islam is a 'false' religion?"

But, Glasov wants to get into rather lurid details - which seems to be his style - so I don't recommend reading the whole piece, at least I didn't.

Now, to Glasov's question, "In what way can you summarize for us why you think that Islam is a 'false' religion?", here is what Fr. Zakaria Botros had to say:

Fr. Zakaria Botros: Of all the religions [Islam] is the only one that has to threaten its adherents with death if they try to break away...Islam spread by force, by the edge of the sword, by fear, threats, and lurid enticements to the basest desires of man.  

Glasov: You always document your discussions with Islamic sources. Why do Muslim clerics and imams have such a difficulty discussing what Islam itself teaches and instead just attack you personally?

Fr. Zakaria Botros: I think the answer is obvious. The Islamic sources, the texts, speak for themselves. Muslims have no greater enemy than their own scriptures—particularly the Hadith and Sira—which constantly scandalize and embarrass Muslims...

So what can the sheikhs of Islam do? If they try to address the issue I raise based on Islam’s texts and sharia, they will have no choice but to agree...The only strategy left them, then, is to ignore all that I present and attack my person, instead.

And when well-meaning Muslims ask their leaders to respond to these charges, one of their favorite responses is to quote the Koran, where it says “Do not ask questions of things that will hurt you.”

This is why the issues I broach often traumatize Muslims—like a freshening slap across the face: a short, sharp, shock. The stubborn, who take it as an attack of "us versus them," irrespective of truths, just fume and plot to kill me; the other, more reasonable Muslims, who are really searching for the truth, end up waking up to the biggest hoax perpetrated on the human race in 1400 years, and many come to the ultimate Truth.

[Muslims' rationale for following the outragious commands in the Koran is] because Muhammad—"Allah’s prayers and blessings be upon him"—said so. Period. Who created such a practice? Muhammad. Why? Who knows...

[S]haria law’s totalitarian approach serves to brainwash Muslims, making them automatons that never question their religion, or, in the words of their own Koran, "Do not ask questions that may prove harmful to them."

I have maintained that Muslims clerics' unequivocal rigidity when it comes to Islam and the Koran, their inability to take any criticism at all, stems from their deep-seated insecurity and realization that theirs is a false religion. Maybe not all realize this, but there must be a point when a lucid thought passes through the mind of a more open-minded, intellectually honest cleric, who then has to hide his feeling (revelation) with more and more stringent demands. 

Jason Kenney Will Not Help Ezra Levant

Once again on the theme of HRCs, immigration and multiculturalism (or visible minorities), Jason Kenney, Conservative Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, was interviewed by the busy Steve Paiken last night on TVO (video now available).

According to this interview, Kenney has dedicated his fourteen years in politics, right up to is recent appointment in this ministerial post, on how to include immigrants and visible minorities into the Canadian society.

It is a laudable endeavor, except during some of Paiken's piercing questions, his ignorance, bad faith, and wishful thinking, come to the fore.

PAIKEN: Would you agree that there are too many Canadians who are coming to this country today from other countries where the respect for [our] liberal democratic values don’t exist, and they are not embracing them adequately as they come to Canada?

KENNEY: Look we can always point to isolated examples…

PAIKEN: But are they only isolated examples?

KENNEY: It’s hard to know, Steve, it’s hard to know.

And a little later on, Paiken impatiently asks:

PAIKEN: Is the family that may have just come here for example from Pakistan, that very much favors sharia law, but perhaps is too fundamentalist to be consistent with Canadian values, and not interested in embracing Western values? Is there too much of that happening?

KENNEY: There’s no easy index to say whether there is too much.

Kenney knows full well that there are plenty of indices out there to support Paiken's observations. This is the type of blind eye that has let the HRCs continue to flourish.

I'm afraid if Levant follows my proposal on how to combat the HRCs, Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, will not be a good ally.

The Legacy That Ezra Levant Has to Fight

My HRCs/immigration link gets even more interesting, like some kind of whodunit where the clues get more intriguing and the assessments more outrageous.

In my last post on the HRCs and immigration, I included all the other minority groups as a sub-set of the visible minority immigrant group, which bring more cases to the HRCs every year.

There is a double, triple, or quadruple whammy here.

For arguments sake, a visible minority immigrant woman can file TWICE (as a woman and as a visible minority). And THREE TIMES if she is also disabled or FOUR TIMES if she calls herself a homosexual.

I don't know what this means in terms of recompensations from the HRCs (and of course the tax-paying Canadians who are footing the bill). But, it could potentially double, triple or even QUADRUPLE her monetary demands.

Not only that, she will be forever a PROTECTED CLASS. No one will touch her for fear of almost guaranteed retaliation by her, the HRCs and the government.

This is the legacy that Ezra Levant has to be fighting to make a real difference.

My reasoning was a little flawed

Women immigrants, gay immigrants, disabled immigrants.....



Type your summary here



Type rest of the post here

My Calculation Was a Little Flawed

In my last post on my challenge to Ezra Levant, I wrote that one of the reasons for the increasing number of HRC cases is the increases in visible minority immigrants. Here is what I wrote:

Of course, there will always be women, the disabled, the homosexual, etc., who will bring forth new cases. But their numbers surely cannot be comparable to these new, adult, immigrants. (For starters, “new” women have to be born, and it takes at least eighteen years for these “new” women to file a case. New immigrants, on the otherhand, arrive as adults ready to file).

This is not quite accurate.

With increasing number of visible minority immigrants, all these other categories will also increase, albeit of the visible minority type:

- Visible minority homosexuals - the rest of the world is far more intolerant of homosexuals than Canada, or other Western countries. 

- Visible minority women, as spouses or other family members - I wonder how many visible minority women immigrate on their own, unless they are persecuted by honor killings?

- Handicapped visible minorities  - from the war fields in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and whatever war is being waged in whatever part of the planet. And also the sick with various serious illnesses like AIDS, tuberculosis, the Ebola virus, and so on.

My original calculation was too moderate.

A Challenge

I don't want to be an irritating gadfly. I do realize that people are busy, that they get overwhelmed by their current activities, and thinking takes time and the luxury of not being in the whirlwind of things.

But, I would like to challenge Ezra Levant on a couple of things - I know Mr. Levant is up to challenges.

First, can he give me alternate theories/ideas for how the HRCs keep increasing their cases each year? I propose that some of it has to do with the large number of new visible minority immigrants being admitted into Canada, who become an ever-replenishable pool of future complainants.

Of course, there will always be women, the disabled, the homosexual, etc., who will bring forth new cases. But their numbers surely cannot be comparable to these new, adult, immigrants. (For starters, “new” women have to be born, and it takes at least eighteen years for these “new” women to file a case. New immigrants, on the otherhand, arrive as adults ready to file).

My second challenge, once I've established the HRC-immigrant connection as tightly as possible - although I think it is pretty tight now - is this:

As I’ve shown above, one of the easiest ways to decrease the HRCs' powers and to eventually shut them down, would surely be to stop and/or to reduce incoming immigrants. (It will be much harder to stop the other groups, let alone reduce their numbers). 

Would Mr. Levant be prepared to make such a commitment towards immigration reform in Canada? He is already an outspoken and well-known leader, and would be a prime candidate.

My reasoning is simple. The HRCs made his life miserable for several years. This un-Canadian institution, as he himself has said, has no place in Canada.  

But, it is not enough to demand that the HRCs be shut down. They gain their power from their applicants, of which visible minorities and immigrants are an ever available (and increasing) pool. Thus, shutting down the HRCs and reforming immigration naturally go hand in hand.