Levant v. Moon: Who Is the Liar?

On October 23, Ezra Levant went after professor Richard Moon who, while actually agreeing that he had significant concerns about section 13 of the Human Rights act and believes is should be removed, had the temerity to call out Levant and the other speechies on their rhetoric and personal attacks on members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The title of Levant's screed, "Richard Moon: liar for hire" is exactly the over the top discourse we've come to expect from Levant when even people, who might agree with his position but not his conduct, find themselves on the receiving end of his temper tantrums.

One of the websites we read actually took time to responded to Levant's screed. We thought we would share it with you now:

Ezra Levant v. Richard Moon: What are the facts?

On October 24, 2009 Ezra Levant posted on his blog "Richard Moon: liar for hire". I thought the posting so outrageous that it required a response.

Ezra Levant has been a vociferous critic of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and staff as well as former staff. Levant is a friend of the powerful and frequent contributor to Canwest publications, authoring opinion pieces about his problem with the the CHRC. He has even written a book detailing his complaints about human rights commissions. Levant first drew attention as a political advisor to the Reform Party, which subsequently became the Canadian Reform Alliance Party (CRAP). Levant then ran for a federal riding in Alberta and following that became a publisher who drew national attention for re-publishing the infamous Danish cartoons that caused riots throughout Western Europe. Levant was then brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission which Levant video taped for broadcast on Youttube.

Richard Moon is a Professor of Law at the University of Windsor who authored a report commissioned by the federal government on section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the regulation of hate speech on the Internet. Moon has written of Levant that:

“I [Moon] have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances....” (Moon quoted in the National Post)

Further, Moon devoted some of his October 23, 2009 Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture, "The Attack on Human Rights Commissions", to the unfair and inaccurate criticisms leveled at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and staff by Levant and others. According to Moon:

"I am sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that there are Internet blogs that post things about the CHRC that are false and malicious. The problem is that these claims have seeped into mainstream discourse – they have been taken up by members of Parliament, they have been adopted in editorials in the National Post and columns in the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s magazine and in a host of other publications, and they have been repeated on radio and television current affairs programming. They have created in the larger public – or a significant element of the public -- a “feeling” that there is a serious problem with human rights commissions, and in particular the Canadian commission, that needs to be addressed. (Moon: Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture)

And the Lecture does that. My purpose here is to examine the claims in Levant's subsequent "Richard Moon: liar for hire", avoiding specific comment on the many potentially libelous statements about Moon, a so-called "corrupt cop" at the CHRC, or the charge that Richard Warman, previously of the CHRC, of using CHRC computers when he was not authorized to do so, etc..

The Facts

1. According to Levant: "Moon claims the CHRC does not have a 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions. He weasels around this point a bit, but that's what he means."

Not true: The fact is that Moon does not deny that all the cases sent to Tribunal for hearing by the CHRC were decided against the respondents. Moon points out that the CHRC brought only the most egregious cases to Tribunal for decision and that is why all the twenty or so cases under s. 13 were successfully decided against the respondents. Just read the complaints and/or judgments against people like Guille, Ouwendyk, etc. to find out why the Tribunals ruled against them. No one in their right mind could have found that the respondents were not broadcasting the most virulent forms of hate. What does Levant not understand? If anything, the CHRC should be commended for acting on the side of caution, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

I will not quarrel here with Levant's choice of words like "conviction rate" and "censorship prosecutions". Those terms more accurately describe criminal prosecution, not the human rights process, which relies on mediation before a Tribunal hearing. These criminal prosecutorial terms are used by Levant to suggest that the CHRC has strayed from a human rights process to a criminal one.

2. According to Levant: "Until the Warman v. Lemire case last month, no-one had beat a prosecution."

Not true: The fact is that the Tribunal struck only the penalty provision in the Lemire case. This is a serious matter that must be appealed. However, the Tribunal found in Warman v. Lemire that, based on the evidence, Lemire was responsible for online hate. Levant slips in the phrase that Lemire "beat a prosecution." Again, Levant wants to suggest that the CHRC behaves as a criminal court.

3. According to Levant: "The reason why section 13 was declared unconstitutional last month in the Warman v. Lemire case was precisely because section 13 had become like a criminal charge."

Not true: Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was not "declared unconstitutional." Nor has s. 13 become "like a criminal charge." No Tribunal member has the power to declare anything "unconstitutional." The Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of any law or Act of Parliament. And the CHRC can still help mediate complaints unlike criminal proceedings.

4. According to Levant: "Moon claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that CHRC staffer Dean Steacy made bigoted comments on neo-Nazi websites...."

Fact: Despite all the sound and fury, Levant doesn't once show that Steacy made "bigoted comments" on Nazi websites. Levant can only offer that Stacey made statements about "white supremacists" and "gave them encouragement". This is a far cry from making bigoted or racist comments. However, even if Stacey had made a racist or homophobic comment to gain access to a Nazi website, it would be entirely justified to gain evidence. Every person, including police and national security agencies, forced to gather information about a potentially violent, criminal, or domestic terrorist group by infiltration must use some of the groups language to gain entry. Without seeming to be part of the group, little background information like addresses, activities and contacts, on Nazis would be possible. Despite Levant's extravagant claims, he offers absolutely no evidence of racist statements, no evidence of advocating violence, and no evidence what so ever that Stacey broke any Canadian law.

5. According to Levant: "Moon claims that Richard Warman, the serial complainant-of-fortune in almost all section 13 cases, didn't work on censorship investigations."

Fact: Levant fails to show that Moon lied about Warman. Levant does not show that Warman influenced or worked on any of the complaints he made as a private person while employed by the CHRC. The only thing Levant can complain of is that Warman "trained" co-workers. But Levant fails to explain what "training" involved. Presumably, "training" was on how to do online research, how to find the address of owners of websites and where websites are located, etc. In addition, Levant's description of Warman as a "serial complainant-of-fortune" is gratuitous, inaccurate, unfair and malicious. It implies that Warman is someone less than respectable and sincere in what he tried to do; that is, to use the available tools to stop online racism.

6. Levant objects to some of Warman's online statements in neo-Nazi forums.

Fact: I do not know what, if anything, Warman wrote in Nazi forums. I do know from experience researching domestic terrorist groups that it is usually necessary to make controversial statements in order to infiltrate, expose and gather information about hate groups as many police agencies and CSIS has been forced to do. It obviously irritates and undermines Levant's complaint that the Canadian Jewish Congress gave Warman an award for his online human rights work, despite anything he might, or might not, have said.

7. According to Levant: "[Moon's Law lecture is] not a case of falsehoods vs. facts; it's just a measure of how skewed Moon's judgment is. He actually defends the crazy case of the McDonald's employee who won the human right not to have to wash her hands -- plus $50,000 tax-free for her troubles."

Fact: Datt vs McDonalds is simply a case of an employer not valuing a 23 year employee - an employee who suffered a disability as a result of employment with McDonalds. As the B.C. Tribunal ruled: "She [Ms Datt] was prepared to perform any duties that would accommodate her disability. Despite this commitment, she was terminated by someone she barely knew, had never worked with, and who did not investigate any job opportunities that might have been available. Ms. Datt expected better from her employer, an employer known for its charitable works." (Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324, August 3, 2007).

Ms Datt did not refuse to wash her hands, she could not wash her hands continuously because of a skin condition caused by work and she simply wanted a transfer to another position where hand-washing would not be so frequent. But Levant can't help but throw in a reference to Datt being a woman and a Muslim on his blog. However, Datt's status as both a woman and a Moslem has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Summary and Conclusion

Levant fails miserably to deliver the facts to prove that Moon is a liar, that the CHRC and former employees are corrupt. Levant simply makes exaggerated claims, but does not prove any of his charges of corruption, malfeasance, et cetera.

To prove his case, Levant must not only show that Moon lied in some substantial way (which Levant does not show) but also that Moon lies for money; that Richard Moon is willing to compromise his integrity as a legal scholar and lie for money. That is what "liar for hire" means and this is a most serious charge. I can't read Levant's mind, but the extreme vitriol of his posting points to a personal reaction to Moon's Law Lecture, rather than just a professional interest in the CHRC and s. 13.

In addition, to prove wrong doing by Warman, Levant must show that he had a direct influence, and Levant does not even show any indirect influence, in the CHRC's handling of his complaints against Nazis and hate mongers. But that is not enough: The crucial stage for any complaint is at the level of the Tribunal and Levant does not present any evidence at all of any backroom influence by Warman on the Tribunal.

To prove wrong doing by any other former staff, or present staff, of the CHRC, Levant must provide direct evidence, but he fails to deliver.

In the end, Levant's blog is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I have resisted commenting on what I think of the merit of potential liable suits for the spurious allegations contained in Levant's blog. Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate that Levant would be at risk of several libel suits and a complaint to the professional body over seeing lawyers.

We'll let Professor Moon get in the last word:

“I’m deeply disturbed by the…smear campaign against the people who support Section 13 and the people at the Commission who are, for the most part, simply carrying out their statutory duties,” Moon says. “You can have a problem with the statute and call for its repeal without attacking civil servants who are generally implementing the law as it stands.”

Bandidos Murder Trial: The "White Nationalist" Connection.

Today, three men were convicted in the Bandido murder trial. Wayne Kellestine, Michael Sandham, and Dwight Mushey were all found guilty on eight counts of first degree murder. Two other men, Frank Mather and Marcelo Aravena were found guilty of one count each of manslaughter and seven counts of first-degree murder each. The final suspect, Brett Gardiner, was found guilty of two counts of manslaughter and six counts of first-degree murder.

The 2006 massacre is considered to be the largest mass murder in Ontario history.

We at the ARC Collective have been following this case since before there was an ARC Collective because of the links to the Canadian, "White Nationalist" movement. The first link became apparent to us when the father of one Bandito associate was interviewed in April 2006 by the media ("Winnipeg Sun") soon after the murders took place:

LONDON, Ont. -- A local Bandidos associate who recently moved to Winnipeg should "disappear" for a while following last week's massacre, his worried, white-supremacist father says.

David Weiche, described by one London biker as "the right-hand man" of Bandidos massacre murder suspect Wayne Kellestine, should keep a low profile, his father Martin Weiche, a well-known London neo-Nazi, warned.

"If I was David ... I'd go and hide," Martin Weiche told Sun Media, adding his son moved to Winnipeg about three months ago.

"I would quickly disappear for a few weeks. The murderers are still out there."

Martin Weiche's history in the Canadian racist movement goes back for decades. Born in Germany, Martin Weiche was a member of the Hitler Youth and fought for Germany during World War II. In 1968, he ran for for Parliament as a "National Socialist." He was an early associate of John Beattie, the founder of the Canadian Nazi Party. In 1981, Weiche was implicated in a failed coup called, "Operation Red Dog" which included Stormfront owner Don Black and the founder of the Heritage Front, the late Wolfgang Droege. Weiche is also believed to have been an early funder of Paul Fromm before some sort of falling out occurred between the two men.

Another more direct, and very interesting, link to the Canadian, "White Nationalist" movement occurred on July 10, 2005. On that day, the Canadian hate group the Northern Alliance was protesting, as they had done in the past and would do so in the future, the Gay Pride Parade in London, Ontario. Many of the regulars, including Fromm, participated in the protest:

Jason Ouwendyk, the then leader of the Northern Alliance (along with Tara Dribnenki in the white shorts).

Tomasz Winnicki.

Nathan Touchette, a former roommate of Kyle McKee of the Aryan Guard.

And David Ruud ("For Honour" on Stormfront).

There was also another group that showed up:

Dave Ruud was the first over to welcome the bikers, and ran quickly to them to shake hands as they were giving sieg heil (nazi) salutes.

Included among the bikers was Wayne Kellestine (right photo) who would later go on to face eight charges of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of eight men on April 8, 2006. Kellestine, also known as "Wiener," once served as the leader of both the Annihilators and St. Thomas Loners, two biker gangs that are now defunct.

According to the Toronto Star, Kellestine loved to pose for photographs in front of his collection of Nazi memorabilia at his London-area farmhouse.

And, of course today Kellestine and six others were convicted of several counts of murder and manslaughter.

At the time of the gay pride parade protest, the bikers were viewed differently:

Ouwendyk Libel Payments

Hey, look what we managed to get a hold of:


Above is a copy of what we believe is the latest payment from Jason Ouwendyk courtesy of his bankruptcy trustee. Our readers may recall Ouwendyk's bankruptcy trustee accepted the full claim for damages from Mr. Warman’s libel suit against him when Ouwendyk sought bankruptcy protection:

At some point in the fall of 2005, the website of the London, Ontario white supremacist group Northern Alliance (www.northernalliance.ca) went down for reasons that remain unclear. Although still too early to herald the group’s demise, there are suspicions that the financial woes of leader Jason Ouwendyk, who sought bankruptcy protection in December of 2004, may be the cause. At the time of his bankruptcy protection, Ouwendyk owed approximately $50,000 to creditors, including $12,500 owed to the author of this article. This was after his bankruptcy trustee accepted the full claim for damages and costs in a small claims libel suit against Ouwendyk as a result of comments made on the Northern Alliance website.

Ouwendyk seems to be out of the picture for the most part, however David Ruud appears to have taken up the mantle of Northern Alliance spokesperson. And considering the work he's done in that regard, it really does look like the Northern Alliance is pretty much kaput.

Melissa Guille Grasping at Straws

Usually we make fun of the posts boneheads leave on our moderated blog, but here we all have a chance to laugh at Melissa Guille's efforts vise vi her request for subpoenas for all the people named within for her Lemire carbon copy "constitutional challenge":








Now we're not legal experts here, but this strikes us as an, "everything and the kitchen sink" approach. We may very well be surprised and that Ms. Guille's request could be granted, but we wouldn't put a hell of a lot of money on it happening.

Another Example of How the "Unenforceable" CHRT Orders Are Being Enforced

BCL has managed to beat us at our own game a few times now when covering subjects related to racist activities. The most recent example is his post detailing how Mr. Ezra Levant's and Mr. Mark Steyn's claims that section 13 is not enforceable are patently false; BCL uses the examples of Melissa Guille and Jason Ouwendyk to more than sufficiently prove that Mr. Levant's and Mr. Steyn's claims are without merit. We added to his proofs the case of Tomasz Winnicki who spent time in jail for contempt.

We would now like to up the ante as it were.

Below is a copy of the CHRC’s initial submissions in the contempt application before the Federal Court of Canada (a “real court” like the "speachies" and boneheads keep complaining about not being involved) against Terry Tremaine for his violation of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s cease and desist order against him. In terms of the “unenforceable” of section 13, well, the Federal Court seems to believe otherwise as they have scheduled the first part of the contempt process against Tremaine for July 23, 2009 in Regina.

We've blocked out the names of the lawyers for the CHRC to prevent the crackpots can't harass them. No conspiracy here Jay Currie so you needn't worry your pretty little head over it.

Your move, BCL. ;)

BCL Is Drinking Our Milkshake! Comments on Enforcement of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decisions

BigCityLib has posted another blog entry covering an area that we here follow. This time he addresses the fact that, despite claims by Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn that Section 13 of the Criminal Human Rights Act is not enforceble, it has, in fact, been enforced, including a time this month:

And, oh look! Here is just such an example--a ruling issued in the Richard Warman v. Canadian Heritage Alliance and Melissa Guille case from April 21, 2009:

...in contrast to the ruling in Warman v. Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk, the ruling in the present case simply suspended the Tribunal's cease and desist order for 30 days pending the motion on the constitutional challenge. After the 30 day period has elapsed (which is presently the case), the cease and desist order comes into effect.

[9] Ms. Guille and the Northern Alliance are therefore, subject to an order of this Tribunal to cease communicating the material that was found to be contrary to s. 13 of the Act and any material that is similar in content.

We would add to BCL's example the case of Tomasz Winnicki who, in July 2006, was sentenced to 9 months in prison for comtempt having continued to violate the terms of the Federal Court injunction by his continued online posting of, "the unrelenting message of hatred"; he was released in October of the same year pending an appeal [see page 3]. Winnicki had been ordered by the CHRT to stop posting hate material online in April 2006 (the injunction on his postings, which he ignored, had been placed on him by the Federal Court pending the decision [see page 7]).

Jason Ouwendyk Decision

The decision has come down:

Warman v. Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk

Certainly not perfect, though given the Guille ruling not entirely surprising. Still, this much is clearly spelled out in the decision:

March 12 Bits and Bites Part II: Ouwendyk Decision to Come Down Tomorrow

The Jason Ouwendyk (pictured with Paul Fromm) will be coming down tomorrow and should be on the CHRT website by 9:30 am (eastern standard time). We will update the blog as soon as we're in a position to do so.

Paul Fromm Attempts to Breach Security at Courthouse

Jason Ouwendyk (left) with fellow Northern Alliance member Tomas Szymanski

We plan on keeping up with the Aryan Guard arrests in Gleichen, AB as we receive more information (fyi, the Aryan Guard are claiming they were the victims of police brutality and were framed, but we don't think most people will be fooled at all). In the meantime we would like to publish the story that we had planned on publishing on August 28.

As many of our readers who follow the antics of the far right in Canada already know, Paul Fromm has been acting as an agent for former (?) Northern Alliance spokesman Jason Ouwendyk, as well as the the agent for the Northern Alliance itself. Paul Fromm is NOT a lawyer which he has said as much himself as a reason for his poor showing before CHRT hearings (thus far he hasn't successfully defended any of those he has represented and may very well have hurt their cases as a result of his incompetence).

The following was sent to us by one source who was in attendance and was verified by a second source:

Racist attack on the Siksika First Nation Reserve near Calgary

We were going to post an article detailing Paul Fromm's attempted breach of security during the Jason Ouwendyk / Northern Alliance CHRT hearings, but we want to alert our readers to a local news story currently breaking.

Thanks to "gandalf" for giving us a heads up.

Racism erupts at the Siksika First Nation Reserve

The police say that four members of the Aryan Guard are currently suspects. Are we surprised?

Canadian Combat18 Moderators

Combat18 is one of the most violent racist movements in Europe, at least west of Berlin, Germany. There are no Canadian chapters per se (though Volksfront is affiliated with a rival Blood and Honour alliance of movements), but there are individuals who consider themselves to be a part of the movement, if only peripherally. The Combat18 forum's Canadian section is usually moribund with only the occasional member posting a message every couple of days. However, there are currently three Canadian moderators working the forums.

We begin with Melissa Desrochers, born September 18, 1980, is a woman from Montreal, Quebecwho works as a medical assistant. On Combat18 forums she uses the name "Boadicea." Based upon her own writing it seems Melissa was a bit of a hellraiser at one time, but is a bit more domesticated. One point in her favor might be the fact that she absolutely can't stand fellow Montreal-based racist Tara Dribnenki. Melissa posted this concerning Dribnenki:

TARA: T'es une ostie de punk crusty de merde.On s'en calisse de toi. T'es mieux de fermer ta criss de gueule sale au lieu de bullshitter... pis t'es mieux de surveiller tes fesses criss de chienne! Toi aussi 2 minutes après que j't'ai appellé pour avoir le numéro de Johnny, tu répondais pu au téléphone, sale merde!

TRANSLATION
TARA: You're a shitty crusty punk. We've had it withyou. You're better to shut your fucking dirty mouthinstead of bullshitting... and you're better to watchyour ass you fucking dog! You too, 2 minutes after I called you to get Johnny's number, you didn't answerthe phone anymore, dirty shit!

Profile: Tomasz Winnicki

Tomasz Winnicki, born on November 17, 1975, once proudly described himself as London, Ontario’s “biggest hater.” His posts on the VNN forums were profanity-laced diatribes against immigrants, African-Canadians, First Nations peoples, women, the police, homosexuals, and his biggest target, Jews. He threatens. He bullies. He’s as close to the stereotypical, frothing at the mouth bigot that one can find in real life outside of comic books.

But really, how seriously can you take someone who at 32 years old and based on current knowledge still lives in his mother’s and father’s basement and doesn’t seem to have ever lived on his own? Well, there was the brief exception of his stay for a few months in one of Canada’s fine correctional facilities for violation of a court injunction, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

pictured left to right: Jason King, David Ruud), Tomasz
Winnicki, Tyler Chilcott, Tomas Szymanski

Winnicki is himself an immigrant who’s family emigrated to Canada from Poland in 1987. He started making waves as a bigot in 2003 when someone discovered his racist website. Though the service provider did pull the plug on Winnicki when they were made aware of the content of his website, this wasn’t the end of Winnicki’s online activities. He soon found a new home on Alex Linder’s Vanguard News Network where he first posted as Thexder_3D. When his real identity was discovered he started posting under his own name. His posts are characteristically rambling, hate-filled and barely literate (you’d think his vocabulary was limited to the phrase, “fuck you Jews” when reading his posts) screeds targeting anyone not White, male, heterosexual, or, well, almost everyone really.

Melissa Guille holding "Dirty Buggers" sign next
to Tomasz Winnicki with camera

Soon Winnicki began attending protests along side Canadian Heritage Alliance leader Melissa Guille, Jason Ouwendyk and his Northern Alliance boneheads and Paul Fromm, the acknowledged leader of the Canadian far right. He mostly attended protests of London’s Gay Pride parades where he held up charming signs such as “AIDS Cures Homosexuals” but there was one protest he had attempted to join in but was prevented from doing so. In September 2004, Winnicki was driving his car with three other men were on their way to a rally in Toronto in support of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. When stopped by the police Winnicki’s car was searched. In his car the police discovered throwing knives, body armour, and a bow with arrows. Instead of attending the rally, Winnicki and the three other men were arrested. He plead guilty to weapons charges on November 23, 2006 and was given a conditional discharge with 6 months probation. It was discovered that one of the men who was arrested with Winnicki was Randal Linton who posts on Stormfront and other hate sites as “Raghnall." The other two were Kevin Lovett and Jason King