Ezra LEVANT has U.S interview with Bernard CHAPIN

Ezra is becoming pretty sharp on his interview techniques. I found this one to be partcularly terse and to-the-point. Here are my [edited] points.

Q1) What exactly is a Canadian human rights commission (HRC)?

A1) HRCs are government agencies. There are fourteen of them in the country — one for every province and territory, and one national HRC. They’re “quasi-judicial tribunals” — that means they’re sort of like courts. They have the power to hold hearings and issue rulings — including fines and other punishments, such as forced apologies. Their rulings are filed at real courts and take on the force of law. To ignore a human rights commission order is to be in contempt of court — for which the punishment can include prison.

However they resemble kangaroo courts as they are generally not staffed by lawyers, do not follow traditional legal protocols (rules of evidence, presumption of innocence) nor due the provide true "due process" (they are investigators, crown prosecutors and judge/jury all rolled into one).

But it’s not just their procedures that are un-Canadian (and un-American). It’s their substance: they prosecute “human rights” cases that aren’t real human rights at all — like the counterfeit “right not to be offended.” I was prosecuted for 900 days under that one.

Q2) Are the HRCs an example of a good idea gone mad?

A2) I think it’s a good idea for us to get along, regardless of race or sex, etc. But most of life’s little grievances and setbacks are too trivial to be arbitrated by the government. We shouldn’t criminalize mere rudeness or offensiveness. And we shouldn’t dress up a political action committee as a neutral arbiter of justice.

Q3) You suggest in your book "Shakedown: How Government is eroding our Democratic Freedoms" that one tactic in fighting back was to "Denormalize the commissions". What do you mean by that?

A3) Most debates [Ed: with the left] are won or lost before they’ve even begun because one side manages to define the terms of the debate and even the vocabulary. It is almost like George Orwell's newspeak in his book "1984" about totalitarianism. Take the very name “human rights commission.” How could you possibly argue against something so saintly? And me? I was accused of “hate speech.” Who could possibly support me?

[So I decided to "rebrand" myself as a] defender of human rights — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, property rights. The HRCs were violating my rights. [and I wasn’t publishing "hate speech", I was legitimately publishing the news! Both TRUE]

Q4) You labeled the commissions “kangaroo courts” and your enemies tried to have you disbarred for using such an accurate phrase.

A4) For the left - the ends justify the means - and it has been ever so since Communism was founded. [or longer] As I document in my book, the CHRC staff publishes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of bigoted comments about Jews, blacks, gays, etc., all in the name of smoking out the “real” haters. I know that sounds nuts, but they’ve justified their own bizarre, racist behavior as being a necessary evil.

When I refused to go quietly, as most HRC victims do — and when I actually started to win, at least in the court of public opinion — the HRC industry decided to personally destroy me. They piled on with a total of three HRC complaints, four defamation suits, and close to 20 law society complaints. They’re all baseless — I’ve won the first six and should win them all — but the hassle and cost of their nuisance suits are clearly designed to take up my time and money and demoralize me. I have named it "lawfare" or "legal warfare".

Q5) Is there any hope that the government will end this HRC reign of terror and error?

A5) I am very hopeful that there will be reforms. Remember, there are 14 of these HRCs in Canada and any province or territory can make reforms. The Conservative Party of Ontario is having a leadership race right now and the HRC is a central issue in the campaign.