Canadian Human Rights Commission missed one

So the Canadian Human Rights Commission, after expending much effort and taxpayer money, did not find Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant guilty of human rights crimes. But I wonder what happened to the CHRC in this case of genuine hate crimes that caused fear and actual damage, not imaginary damage, among a Canadian minority community?

A man found guilty of firebombing attacks against Jewish targets in Montreal wasn’t the brains behind the attacks and should be given a suspended sentence, his lawyer argued yesterday. Gaetan Bourassa said his client, Azim Ibragimov, 25, did not plan the firebombing of a Jewish boys’ school, a Jewish community centre or a car on Sept. 2, 2006, and should receive three years’ probation. Crown attorney Mario Dufresne argued in Quebec Court yesterday that a distinction must be made between vandalism and terrorism. “The goal was not to just damage property but to cause fear and intimidate Â… the Jewish community,” he said, in asking for a four-year sentence. While Ibragimov’s actions were serious, Mr. Bourassa argued, it was his co-accused who planned the attack and took advantage of his friend’s immaturity to carry it out. Omar Bulphred, 23, faces nine charges. Ibragimov pleaded guilty in April to three counts of using fire or an explosive to cause damage to property, and one of uttering threats. He is to be sentenced on Nov. 17.

Please note how the defense is minimizing the anti-Semitic aspects of the case, even though all he did was attack Jewish institutions. And he has admitted his guilt.

He pleaded guilty earlier this year to firebombing Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish Boys school in Outremont in 2006, and attempting to attack a community centre the following year.

Ibragimov has admitted to throwing a Molotov cocktail at the school and trying to set one off at the Snowdon YM-YWHA.

He also admitted to writing letters that claimed the crimes were committed in the name of Islamic Jihad, a militant group that has vowed to destroy Israel and set up an Islamic Palestinian state, and hinted more incidents would come.

This must by why the CHRC didn’t get involved:

His former girlfriend, Anna Zelenko, told the court she didn’t believe Ibragimov was racist because he knew she was part Jewish and had lived in Israel for seven years.

Zelenko told the court he never made any anti-Semitic remarks while they were together. She testified she chose not to marry Ibragimov because he’s not very bright.

Oh, so it wasn’t a hate crime, because he had a part-Jewish girlfriend.

Mind you, I think I’ve come full circle about the concept of hate crimes, and I’m just about to decide that I’m against them in principle—but when a nation has an organization whose sole purpose is to seek out and destroy ideological haters, it’s funny that they didn’t have anything to do with, well, an actual hate crime trial. Well, no, not really. It’s The Exception Clause. Just add the phrase “except the Jews” to any case, such as, “The CHRC is against hate crimes against all people and groups.” Then you’ll understand.

This entry was posted in Anti-Semitism, Terrorism, The Exception Clause. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Canadian Human Rights Commission missed one

  1. Long_Rifle says:

    You should know better. It’s not a hate crime if it’s against a Jew, because OBVIOUSLY Jews deserve all that hate towards them.

    It would ONLY have been a hate crime if a Jew had defended him/herself and killed the guy…

  2. Hi Ms. Yourish,

    Just an FYI, the CHRC does not have jurisdiction over criminal matters, they operate in the civil realm. Canada does have hate crime laws on it’s books.

    As an alleged Human Rights Commission the CHRC is charged with policing thought crimes under Section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    If you offend the wrong party or are otherwise considered a political enemy you may easily find yourself hauled before the CHRC under Section 13(1) as the CHRC and it’s provincial counterparts have proven to be susceptible to both infiltration & corruption by activist NGO’s and other even less desirable elements.

    Sad to say but organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada were instrumental in the development and implementation of Section 13(1). A move that has backfired on B’nai Brith who have been fighting for several years now, a complaint lodged against them by Islamists in the province of Manitoba under that provinces Section 13(1) equivalent.

  3. Michael Lonie says:

    Ah but they do run down “hate crimes” against Jews. They seek out and punish Nazi sympathizers posting illiterste screeds on websites from their parents’ basements and throw the book at them. They hunt down vile anti-semitic canards posted on those sites, although most of them are posted by their own agent provocateur, Richard Warman. So you see, they are alert to the terrible threat of Nazi antisemitism in Canada. They are just copacetic about Muslim antisemitism, since if they came down on Muslims they might get firebombed too.

    Mark Steyn commented that the one time (before his and Levant’s show trials) that the CHRC dismissed a case was that against the Canadian Nazi Party. It was on a technicality. They found that they had brought a case against an organization that did not exist.

    Forget the “hate crimes” aspect. Just throw the book at somebody who commits the crime, whatever it is: arson, assault, etc. Don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, hang him for his actions. But hang him high.

  4. Alex Bensky says:

    I am firmly opposed to the idea of “hate crimes” for two basic reasons. they criminalize speech rather than action and under the First Amendment so far (we shall see how an Obama administration interprets it) speech itself, no matter how noxious and nasty, should not be an item for government control.

    Second, the concept of “hate crimes” is one of those vague leftist terms that winds up being applied to anyone with whom they disagree. It is a very slippery slope. Note, for example, that ads in student newspapers opposing reparations for blacks have been considered such crimes. In Canada a minister is enjoined from reading whatever he likes from the Bible in public because he chose to read the verses against homosexuality.

    One of the reasons I voted for McCain was that the sort of people Obama associates with politically tend to believe in criminalizing speech they don’t like. On university campuses, where the left has power, the left has become the chief opponent of free speech in the country and I don’t think they’d mind extending their power to the rest of us.

    I finally figured out some years back that the authoritarianism in leftist ideology is not an anomaly, it’s inherent in the system.

    As to requiring national service from junior high up, that’s another post.

  5. Lefty says:

    This is a peculiar posting on Meryl’s part, who seems determined to shoehorn everything into her “Exception Clause” worldview.

    First, how could the CHRC get involved in the case if no-one filed a complaint with them?

    Second, even if someone did file a complaint with the CHRC it would probably be out of the their purview anyway. This is a criminal case, not a civil case involving disrimination or speech that supposedly incites discrimination.

    (In fact, one of the biggest problems with the CHRC is that a criminal defendent or a defendent in a normal civil suit has more procedural protections than someone facing the CHRC/CHRT. But that’s another story.)

    Third, it simply isn’t true that the CHRC has ignored anti-Semitism. I suspect that the bulk of the speech cases brought at the federal level have involved anti-Semitism because the bulk of the cases have all been brought by Richard Warman.

    Richard Warman is a former investigator at the CHRC who has now become its biggest complainant. He’s made it his personal crusade to shut down white supremicist web sites that publish anti-Semitic material, like the Freedom Site run by Mark Lemire. Warman even received an award from the Canadian Jewish Congress for his efforts to shut down these basement losers. Why Warman obsesses on white supremecists while ignoring the Jew-hatred published by radical Muslims is a mystery.

    But if I were to speculate about the mindset held by Warman and the whole CHRC crowd, I’d say it’s a mixture of: (a) fighting the last war — they’re so obsessed with neo-Nazis that they don’t see the far greater threat posed by Muslims like Ibragimov, and (b) Political Correctness run amok — persecuting immigrant Muslims is uncool, so they’re conveniently ignored.

  6. I stand corrected. But not having jurisdiction doesn’t stop the ACLU from issuing statements in support of certain groups. I guess I assumed the CHRC would do the same thing.

    They can’t disable that organization fast enough for my tastes. I read recently that even Steven Harper is noticing he’s got a monster on his hands.

  7. Bob says:

    Hate crime legislation just runs counter to the idea of common justice. As soon as we classify crimes against one ethnic or racial group as worse than those committed against another, we effectively declare open season on the non-protected groups — whether they be American natives driven from their lands by White settlers or Jews rounded up into ghettos.

  8. Alex Bensky says:

    There is no shortage of Muslim activity in Canada that could readily be considered anti-Semitic and hateful. I eagerly await any, and I mean any, CHRC activity in this area.

  9. Michael Lonie says:

    The HRCs in Canada choose which complaints they will pursue. A complaint against a group they do not disapprove of will not be pursued. That’s why cases against Muslims are so rare. They do not pursue cases against people who might murder them or firebomb their homes if they did such things.

  10. Alex Bensky, Michael Lonie is essentially correct, the HRC’s will only pursue a complaint if it is against a “designated victim class”. It is a Marxist perspective straight from Turtle Bay – the World HQ of the Human Rights Mullahs.

    For instance in Alberta the provincial HRC says it is fine to sing or chant “Kill the Christians” – as Christians are considered part of the oppressor class, but Rev Boissoin was fined, ordered to apologize and barred for life from preaching the gospel’s tenets on homosexuality for writing a letter to the editor that criticized the Gay lifestyle.

    Give it time, an Orthodox Rabbi will be charged in similar fashion soon.

    As I mentioned earliar B’Nai Brith has had it’s own Weapon of Mass Censorship Destruction, Canada’s vile thought crime law Section 13 (1) turned against them by Islamists, a preferred victim class of Canada’s HRCs.

    B’nai Brith have belatedly determined that they do not enjoy being subjected to abuse of process, such as the non-disclosure of evidence held against them, the denial of the right under natural law to face their accuser etc etc etc.

    And yet foolishly they still hope they contain this fools golem they have unleashed. They want the law tweaked not abandoned in the vain hope it will remain their playtoy.

Comments are closed.