VIDEOS: It’s “Man-Up with Ezra”™ Time [UPDATED]

Aside from our huge talent and Award-Winning Humility, we just keep that news a-coming, don’t we? Enjoy: WebElf Blogroll News, Sunday, January 13th, A.D. 2007.


It’s morning again in the Great White North, and time to stand up and say that we are proud to be Canadians.

Ezra has stood up, and spoken.

A real man amongst us, speaking the truth in the face of an unelected, unaccountable tribunal– truly the banal smiling face of soft fascism come to Canada to steal away our freedoms, and chill our voices and thoughts.

It may be recently “unCanadian Behaviour” to have heroes, but when faced with an abyss of evil, Mr. Levant has boldly and publicly chosen truth, whatever the cost. Let us remember and honour and tell the story of what he has done, and is doing. He has given us the gift of his courage.

It’s time to man-up with our brother Ezra.


1. Opening statement

2. What was your intent?
3. Violence in Alberta
4. I don’t answer to the state
5. “You’re entitled to your opinions”
6. The limits of free speech, and the power to order me to apologize

7. Fresh Ez: How does the commission make decisons?


19 thoughts on “VIDEOS: It’s “Man-Up with Ezra”™ Time [UPDATED]

  1. Go Ezzra! You Rock! Tell it to her!

    Canadian HRC is a fascist farce and should be deported to Cuba or Saudia Arabia!

  2. Am confused. Mr. Levant says he does not recognize the legitimacy of the HRC. Why, then, following her instructions, is he trying to explain himself and plead his case?

  3. First, permit me to self-identify. I am a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama, of an age by which many of my profession retire. My legal experience, while diverse, has been primarily commercial, but occasionally it has involved me in controversies governed by the sacred safeguards of the United States Constitution, and such is now the case with respect to a pending petition to the United States Supreme Court seeking justice for a man who has been denied the historic remedy for a libel because he is alleged to be a “public figure” and must therefore prove “actual malice” (i.e., publication of a libel with knowledge of its falsity). This high standard of proof represents the current constitutional balance between the right of an individual to protect his reputation and the right of Americans to be informed by robust and untrammeled public discussion of every conceivable issue of interest to their society.

    Under certain circumstances I have questioned whether this absolutist commitment to free speech may have been carried too far in the United States. The current attempt by Canadian Muslims to undermine the traditional freedom of the west by pretending to be endangered or insulted by the opinions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn has forever banished from my mind any doubt about the unyielding rigor with which freedom of speech is protected in the United States. While I confess that fairly close attention to the statist drift of Canadian society over the past fifty years has persuaded me that little is to be learned from Canada but negative lessons, the present absurd – one might say, even suicidal – infatuation with “political correctness” is a negative lesson of such terrifying portent that one should be grateful for the opportunity to be awed by it at a distance and to learn from it vicariously without being burned directly. The overwhelming majority of Americans, I among them, are utterly appalled at the soft totalitarianism of Canadian “human rights comissions” with their power to use public resources to harass anyone for the expression of a political opinion to which someone else takes offense, unless of course such opinion directly incites to violence or transgresses other reasonable limitations that have historically evolved along with freedom of speech itself. Even then such limitations ought only to be enforced by a court of law governed by the historic protections of due process.

    The infinite touchiness of Muslims about their “rights” in the west derives from their determination to bend the host society to their own retrograde and intolerant value system. Apart from the utter stupidity of allowing morally relativistic “political correctness” to be a weapon that Canadians turn on themselves in furtherance of their own destruction, how is it possible that Canadians think so little of the glorious heritage of freedom that they are mindlessly sacrificing on the altar of multi-culturalism?

    I have admired Mark Steyn for a number of years as one of the most gifted journalists writing today. I am awed by the reach of his knowledge, his understanding of the threats confronting the survival of western civilization, his incomparable wit – the more biting the better – and his astounding productivity. Before becoming acquainted by this shameful assualt on the freedom of both Messrs. Steyn and Levant, I was unfamiliar with Mr. Levant. A small benefit of this controversy is that this loss on my part has been remedied, for I have been thrilled by Mr. Levant’s eloquent, principled and utterly defiant defence of his right to be a free man in modern Canada and to uphold the heritage that so grandly distinguishes the English speaking people from those with a less fortunate experience the world over. For the sake of freedom worldwide and for the future good of Canadians, I hope that this controversy is resolved not merely by dismissing the contemptible complaints against Messrs. Steyn and Levant, but by convincing the Canadian people of the imperative need to wake up from their self-imposed stupor of “political correctness” and return to their historic loyalty to true freedom of speech.

  4. William M. Slaughter, I love you. I’d like to reproduce your comments in full on my blog. If you read this, please respond here, or email me at oldweesie at sasktel dot net.

  5. He is using her as a prop in a carefully planned and brilliantly executed expose of a stupid institution that has to be stopped. The reason why you are able to see the whole encounter via YouTube is so that the sham that is the Human Rights Commission will be exposed to the world.

  6. Oh yeah, because the U.S. has accomplished such a better job of including its large populations of blacks and Hispanics.

    Let’s follow the American model people! Pick up guns, step on anyone that gets in your way (especially if they are darker), and scream free speech at the top of your voice! (it doesn’t really matter what you scream; it’s free!)

  7. I am just shocked at this. Apparently there are no free speech in Canada or you will be persecuted for your views.
    Good luck in your fight.

  8. Pingback: Free Mark Steyn!
  9. Poor Mr. Levant.

    He published cartoons that he knew would offend the beliefs of a large segment of the population, and now he’s bitching when he’s been held to account for it.

    Sorry to be blunt, but honestly what did he expect? Someone would have hauled him before the HRC is he’d published an obscene cartoon about Jesus, so why should it be any different for other groups?

    1. Mr. Bryce:

      (1) Commenting on Post 21 doesn’t get much attention, except from the weenie running the site.

      (2) Running around being afraid of people cutting off your head is the problem, not Mr. Levant. See Salman Rushdie.

      (3) Is that really your best take on the whole issue of free speech? Don’t worry about it– the rest of us will do the heavy lifting for you. You can just sit back and make idle comments on how people who are actually risking something in this fight are just stupid anyway.

      (4) If you ever come up with some real ideas or arguments on the issues involved, please e-mail me directly, and I’ll link to them.


  10. Good timing, I was just about to add another comment.

    If one were to make a point about this, then frankly, the mature and principled thing to do would be anything but reprinting a cartoon that goes against an established belief system. For instance, one could create an original cartoon lampooning the extremists.

    But by going this route, one gets the impression that Mr. Levant is just trying to pick a fight.

  11. Incidentally, I’ve checked the timeline you spoke of, and found it to be completely wrong. The entire incident was started in Denmark, by Danish newspapers.

    Sigh. Danish cartoons, obviously. Local imams upset, fail to cause general Muslims outrage at home, go on world tour. Cartoons do appear on Egyptian paper front page much earlier, no outrage ensues; Danish Imams do travel around with added misrepresentative pictures plus original cartoons, ramp up ‘spontaneous outburst’, chaos ensues, death threats vs. cartoonists. Welcome to soft-Jihad!

    Dear Stephen: Before you accuse someone of being careless, (1) check the data, (2) don’t assume the Jihadist account is correct or fair, (3) Don’t take the chickenish mainstream media account of their own actions as accurate, brave, or reasonable.

    Just because Ezra is a rabble rouser does not, logically, prove all his positions are wrong.


  12. I often come back and watch these clips. Heck, i’d buy it on DVD. Ezra, please visit Denmark one day, I want to experience you in person.

    A friend abroad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s