Human rights commission prosecutes only Christians

By Clarice Feldman

Ezra Levant, that fighter extraordinaire for free speech, notes that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) which once unsuccessully targetted him, seems to prosecute only Christians for hate speech.

His prime example is a Canadian Islamic imam who spews nothing but hate and whom the CHRC will not prosecute:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians, and even called for the murder of infidels.

Marc Lebuis, the publisher of the Quebec blog Point de Bascule, filed a complaint with the CHRC back in April, after reading a hateful book called "Islam or Integration?" "Islam or Fundamentalism" (thanks to reader John for the translation correction.) You can see a copy of the book in its entirety here. (It's in French.)

The book plainly meets all the tests of section 13, including the jurisdictional test -- it was written by a radical Muslim cleric here in Canada, named Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, and it was published on the Internet by him, too.
More importantly, Al-Hayiti's book seethes with hate. According to Lebuis's careful notes, it included statements such as these (I've included only a portion of them):

Homosexuals Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded."[/quote]

The reason for rejecting the complaint is so preposterous I cannot even paraphrase it, and urge you to read Levant's article which quotes this CHRC Mickey Mouse blather in whole.

The case, of course, only underscores the prejudicial nature of all such hate crime legislation. In Levant's words which cannot be improved upon: "It's raw politics. In the politically correct war of censorship that the CHRC wages on Canadians, Muslims are exempt from the law (as are Tamils, Sikhs and even Jews).That's a form of corruption. This is proof that the CHRC is a political weapon, not a human rights agency, and certainly not an agency that deserves to be called any sort of legal apparatus."

h/t: Clive