The Hate Crimes Racket
Jewish Lawyer Exposes Rank Bigotry of Canadian Human Rights Commission

Mark Alessio

(Posted 12/10/08 In a November 20, 2008 posting on his blog,, Canadian author, journalist and attorney, Ezra Levant, revealed the results of an experiment undertaken by him in regards to the policies and philosophy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

On November 17, 2008, Mr. Levant’s attorney, Thomas W.R. Ross, received a letter from Lucie Viellette, Secretary to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stating that a complaint filed against Mr. Levant had been dismissed on the grounds that Mr. Levant published the article in question “with the goal of furthering a public debate on freedom of expression.” The article, which warns against the targeting of children and teenagers by the radical homosexual agenda, contains the following:

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

What was the nature of Mr. Levant’s “experiment?” It is this: The article was not written by Mr. Levant:

This was a perfect scientific experiment. You see, I had republished, word for word, the very same "hate speech" that Rev. Stephen Boissoin had published six years ago in Alberta. Rev. Boissoin was found by both the Alberta HRC [Human Rights Commission] and the CHRC [Canadian Human Rights Commission] to be guilty of hate speech.

On Monday, June 17, 2002, the Red Deer Advocate Newspaper had published a letter to the editor entitled “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” written by Boissoin, a Protestant minister. As a result Boission was found guilty of violating Section 13 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Boissoin received from the Alberta Human Rights Commission both a lifetime ban on preaching sermons that criticize homosexuality and a lifetime ban on private communications which are critical of homosexuality.

Mr. Levant merely re-published Boissoin’s letter, attributed it to himself and waited for the inevitable “human rights violation” complaint to be lodged against him. It was, but, unlike Rev. Biossoin, he was acquitted. Mr. Levant wrote:

I published the exact same words Rev. Boissoin used. I published the words in the exact same jurisdiction that Rev. Boissoin did – in Alberta. I published them in contravention of the exact same laws that Rev. Boissoin did – the Stalinist human rights acts. And a complaint was brought against me, just as it was against Rev. Boissoin. Only one thing was different. Rev. Boissoin is Christian. I'm Jewish.

In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC.

Comment: Canada’s HRC’s are having a field day with their anti-Catholic/Protestant witch-hunts:

- In 1999, Toronto printer Scott Brockie was ordered by the Ontario HRC to pay a homosexual activist group $5,000 for refusing to print their letterhead.

- In 2002, the Saskatchewan HRC ordered the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and Hugh Owens each to pay $1,500 to three complainants because of the publication of an advertisement that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality.

- In 2005, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary became the target of a human rights complaint for reiterating the Catholic Church’s teachings on “same-sex marriage.”

- Also in 2005, the Knights of Columbus of Port Coquitlam, BC, were fined by the BC Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to allow their hall to be used for a lesbian “wedding” reception.

- In 2007, Fr. Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight Magazine were accused of “hate speech” for criticizing the radical homosexual agenda and reiterating Catholic teaching regarding so-called “same-sex marriage.” Their legal fees totaled some $20,000.

- Also in 2007, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) and its Leader Ron Gray came under investigation after a homosexual activist complained that material found on the Party's website was offensive to homosexuals.

These few examples are merely a sampling of the assaults launched against Catholics and Protestants. And the fact that some of these cases were summarily dismissed means absolutely nothing. The people charged still had to endure the negative publicity (and its attendant harassment), the hassle of litigation and the exorbitant legal fees involved.

In the entire history of section 13, stretching back to 1977, not one single Jew, Muslim or gay has been taken before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the CHRC. Mr. Levant highlighted this sad reality powerfully through his “experiment.” He notes:

Gentle reader, do you really think that not one single Jew has uttered hate speech in 31 years? I'll answer that for you: I published hate speech on my own web – I published Rev. Boissoin's comments. I know that's hate speech, because both the Alberta HRC and the CHRC said so. Do you really think that not a single Muslim radical, or Sikh radical, or Tamil radical, has uttered hate speech in 31 years? But .... 100% of the CHRC's targets have been white, Christian or conservative.

In their 1998 book, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, authors James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter date the term hate crime to the year 1985, when it was used in a U.S. Justice Department survey of “hate crime statistics.” Fourteen years later, The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 – whose stated goal was “to enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes” – was passed by the Senate, but never became law. At the time, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States (and Barack Obama’s pick for the position of U.S. Attorney General), Eric Holder, claimed that, “present law is an anachronism that shackles federal prosecutors”.

Of course, the “hate crime” experts cannot even decide what constitutes such a crime. The criteria – mental or physical disabilities, sexual preference, political affiliation – differ from state to state. Yet, they manage to agree, conveniently, that the system of law upon which this nation was founded is “an anachronism that shackles federal prosecutors.”

However, in their study, Jacobs and Potter highlight the fact that vague definitions of what constitutes a “hate crime” make for unreliable statistics:

“Hate crime” is a social construct. It is a new term, which is neither familiar nor self-defining. Coined in the late 1980’s to emphasize criminal conduct motivated by prejudice, it focuses on the psyche of the criminal rather than on the criminal’s conduct.

 “Prejudice” is an amorphous term. If prejudice is defined narrowly, to include certain organized hate-based ideologies, there will be very little hate crime. If prejudice is defined broadly, a high percentage of intergroup crimes will qualify as hate-crimes. If only a select few crimes, such as assault or harassment, can be transformed into hate crimes, the number of hate crimes will be small. If vandalism and graffiti, when motivated by prejudice, count as hate crimes, the number of hate crimes will be enormous .... In other words, we can make the hate crime problem as small or large as we desire by manipulating the definition.

Today, “hate crime statistics” are tossed about like volleyballs, often by well-funded groups, which, not coincidentally, provide government and law enforcement agencies with “educational resources” for combating this hate. The fact is, though, that while prejudicially-motivated crimes have always existed (with laws already in place for their prosecution), “hate crimes,” as least insofar as the term is currently used, have become little more than bludgeons used in the advancement of certain agendas. Due to the elastic and fickle nature of “hate-crime” definitions, quoting The Book of Leviticus regarding homosexual behavior becomes as heinous a crime as murdering someone because of the color of his skin. It is a “make it up as you go along” system.

The “human rights” tribunals in Canada have been particularly diligent in using the “hate-crime” concept to punish (and, hopefully, silence) Catholics and Protestants. According to Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes.” Author and political commentator Mark Steyn replied:

It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.

In other words, we can make the hate crime problem as small or large as we desire by manipulating the definition. The minister who refuses to marry two homosexuals. The Knights of Columbus chapter which refuses to allow its auditorium to be used to mock the Sacrament of Matrimony. The priest who reiterates Catholic doctrine in opposing “same-sex” marriage. These are the “Most Wanted Criminals” of the future. Guilty of nothing other than thought-crimes, they will be held up as examples of all that is wrong in society and the world.



- ADL Surveys "American Attitudes on Religion, Moral Values and Hollywood"


- "David & Goliath" City Discovered?


Want More News?

Mark Alessio's "Remnant News Watch" column appears in every issue of The Remnant

Subscribe to The Remnant! For more information, please click here