Please enter all data legibly
CASE ID #: ____169953______
HEARING DATE / TIME: ____1/11/08_11:00 AM_____
LOCATION: ____AHRCC Hearing Room 8B, Calgary_______
PRESIDING CLERK: ___Shirlene McGovern_________
PLAINTIFF(S): ____Mohamed Elmasry, Syed Soharwardy___
REPRESENTING: __Canadians United To Kill the Infidel and Drive the Jews to the Sea_____
PLAINTIFF GENDER: _x__ Male ____ Female ___ Transgender ___ Hermaphrodite
PLAINTIFF AGE: __refused__
___ White / West European ___ Black / African ___ Indigenous / Inuit / Pacific Islander
___ East Asian ___ South Asian _x__ Middle Eastern / Arab ___ South European / Swarthy / Bohunk
___ Jamaican ____ Mexican/Central American ___ South American ___ Antarctican
___ Croatian ___ Serb __ Serbo / Croat ___ East Central Albanian-Slavic __ Hutu __ Tutsi
PLAINTIFF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION:
___ Christian (Catholic) ___ Christian (Protestant) ___ Christian (Eastern / Russian Orthodox)
___ Sunni Muslim ___ Shiite Muslim _x_ Wahabbist Muslim ___ Buddhist ___ Hindu
___ Atheist ___ Zorastrian ___ Confucian __ B'hai ___ Wiccan ___ Satanist ___ Scientologist
PLAINTIFF IMMIGRATION STATUS:
___ Native-born Canadian ___ Naturalized Citizen ___ In-Process ___ Work Visa
___ Student Visa ___ Travel Visa ___ Welfare Visa ___ Will get around to paperwork eventually
PLAINTIFF SEXUAL ORIENTATION (check all that apply):
_x__ Heteronormative ___ Gay ___ Lesbian ___ Bi-Curious
___ B&D (Dominant/Master) ____ B&D (Submissive / Slave)
___ Cross-dressing ___ "Water Sports" _x__ Animal Play ___ Curling Fetish
___ Cleveland Steamer / Dirty Sanchez ___ French
Note: The Alberta Human Rights Commission offers all employees $200 gift card bounty bucks for all newly discovered oppressed ethnic, religious, or sexual classifications! Alert your supervisor to see if you are eligible for this exciting bonus program!
DEFENDANT(S): ______Ezra Levant, Publisher, Western Standard magazine________
IF NOT WHITE MALE, PLEASE EXPLAIN ____________________________________
NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
Plaintiffs accuse defendant of republishing Danish
caractures charictures cracatuires cartoons of Mohamed, subjecting the Prophet and Islam to ridicule and in violation of AHRCC Form 18-55-d, Guidelines on Canadian Blasphemy Reduction Act of 2006.
Retraction, formal public apology, two goats, $4,500, conversion to Islam, beheading
CLERK OBSERVATIONS (use extra sheets if necessary)
Defendant acknowledges awareness of charges against him. He is represented by counsel but insists on opening statement and filming the hearing. Despite warnings and brochure on self incrimination he proceeds.
Defendant states he is attending under protest and would do crime again. States belief that AHRCC has no authority to prosecute. Under eye contact, defendent's counsel shrugs. Defendant says hearing in violation of "separation Mosque and State" (note: potential violation of Section 118-c(a) AHRCC Innuendo Act?). Claims "original intent" of Commission not to enforce Islamic law. Defendant apparently unfamiliar with AHRCC interoffice memo HVM-d11, "Koranic Compliance Guidelines for Non-Muslim Associates."
Calls Commission "dump for junk," cites previous cases. Calls AHRCC "joke," "pseudo court," "Judge Judy." Cites critical statements of Commission founder, even though he doesn't work here any more. Says authority unlawful, unconstitutional. Counsel seems oblivious to client's contempt, is seen reading "Highlights for Children" magazine from waiting room.
Starts yapping about British common law, Magna Carta, Canadian law, UN Declaration of Human Rights, other documents of white male privilege, etc. Subject seems agitated. Stuff about conscience, religion, expression blah blah blah. Seems to be stonewalling because none of this has any reference in my copy of Publication AHRCC-0503(k), "Hearing Guidelines for Human Rights Clerks." Long diatribe about Sharia Law, radical Islam.
Sorry, I crossed my arms and kind of spaced out there for a second to look at that nice big landscape painting in the hearing room. Does the Commission gift shop have prints? Anyhoo, defendant still seems agitated, and offers thanks to (probably also racist) magazine donors. What is this, the racist Oscars?
Pursuant to Section 3:"What was your intent in publishing the offensive materials?"
Defendant tries the old interrogation ju-jitsu, asks "why is that relevant?" I tell him "because of Section 3, part B." ZING! Take that, Mr. Clever Racist. He tries it again; "are you saying one answer is wrong and another is right?" Feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello routine. "If I said hypothetically that it was to instill contempt would that be contrary to law?" I advise him I will check on the AHRCC website updates. Says intention was to demonstrate he has right to publish whatever the hell he wants. Must check to see how this is classified in AHRCC intent classification guidelines. Now starts saying AHRCC/government has no right to question what is in his mind. Probable violation of AHRCC-0944(d) "How To Read Defendant Mind."
Bingo! Have defendant dead to rights. Admits he published material to "take advantage of maximum freedom," "without reservation," "for the most unreasonable reason." Admits guilt in offending plaintiffs. Looks like another AHRCC Interrogator of the Month Award and $500 bonus for "McGovern of the Mounted"! LOL
More agitation from Defendant. Apparently knows hearing is not going well. Calls me "thug" (AHRCC-0773, Prohibited Phrases Glossary). Claims plaintiffs would have me in burqqa. is this a subtle sexist harassment suggestion that defendant would rather see me in flimsy peek-a-boo negligee? Says he is not seeking to be exonerated. Wish all cases were this easy, I'd be happier at bonus time! LOL
Defendant says some snippy remark about "irony of 'Human Rights' Commission." I tell him he is entitled to his opinion. He says "I wish that were a fact," all smart-alecky. I hand him AHRCC Pamphlet 7401, "Your Canadian Rights To Keep Your Opinion To Yourself."
I explain to defendant plaintiffs' concern that cartoons will incite violence against Muslims. Defendant says only violence against Alberta house of worship was his synagogue, said firebombed by Muslim man. Oh boy, here we go we go with the tired old firebombed synagogue Jew sob story. Defendant seems to think it funny that firebomber ignited himself. Classic Zionist blame-the-victim-ism, as noted in AHRCC Bulletin 19332-h, "Know Your Typical Zionist Oppression Techniques."
More objectification, more blame-the-victimism. Defendant calls plaintiffs' home countries "hellholes," blames violence on lack of free speech. Clear cut violation of AHRCC Rule Directive AA45-33, "Disparagement of Non-Western Cultural Norms." Says that even if assigned apology he will not mean it. Now says apology is cruel and unusual punishment, and will "rot in hell" before he says apology. Geez, make up your mind. But if he admits he won't say what he means, how do I know he meant that? My head hurts. I'm going to look at the nice painting again.
Pursuant to Informational Directive CGR-4419, I explain to defendant how the Commission process is designed to be fair and that cases can be decided in either direction. Defendant immediately becomes argumentative, claiming that is not the case. Pursuant to Informational Directive CGR-4419(b), I explain to him that just because they have not been decided in either direction in the past, it doesn't mean that can't hypothetically be decided that way in the future. This only seems to agitate him further, and continues to express contempt. However this case is decided, he better be ready for some serious punishment.
I can't believe this is still going on, I'm late for lunch and defendant is toast, but keeps yapping. Starts asking a bunch of questions like "Who should determine what speech is reasonable?" "Who should determine what is offensive?" Umm, heh-looo Ezra -- what am I, a potted plant? I didn't spend 2 years getting my M.A. in Hate Speech Detection at McGill for this kind of treatment.
Now he says he "hopes to be convicted and sentenced." Great. Thanks for not telling me that up front Ezra. Otherwise I couldn't spend the whole morning listening to your stupid long-winded yapping about freedom of speech and 800 years and the Magna Carta and thoughtcrimes blah blah blah, with nothing to distract me except the painting and doodling on my legal pad, and that stupid green pop can of yours that just left a big ring on my new desk.
DEFENDANT ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT TEST (DAAT)
MITIGATING FACTORS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
Magazine out of business. I don't think his counsel was very competent, as he allowed defendant to say all that hurtful stuff
Retraction and apology seems reasonable. May help him with anger issues. Split the difference on economic reward to $2250, one goat. 100 hours of mandatory Islamic counseling, after which beheading option will be reconsidered.
I'm late for lunch.
THIS SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK