Libel Chill in Levantland

"Much of what [Mr. Levant] wanted to talk about at trial related more to Dr. Elmasry than to [Mr. Awan]."
"I find that [Mr. Levant's] dominant motive in these blog posts was ill-will, and that his repeated failure to take even basic steps to check his facts showed a reckless disregard for the truth."
"[Mr. Levant] ought to have been aware of the serious ramifications of his words on the reputation of this law student. Yet, at trial, he repeatedly tried to minimize his mistakes and his lack of diligence."
Judge Wendy Matheson, Ontario Superior Court

"Mr. Awan is very pleased with the decision and is grateful that at long last he has been vindicated."
Brian Shiller, lawyer

"This is a shocking case of libel chill and should concern any Canadian who is worried about radical Islam, and the right to call out anti-Semitism in the public square."
"But Awan was, at one time, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, an anti-Semitic organization. At the time Awan was its youth president, the CIC was led by a notorious anti-Semite, Mohamed Elmasry. Elmasry famously went on national TV to state that any adult in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorism. The CIC has publicly called for the legalization of anti-Semitic terrorist groups."
"And yet the judge ruled that it is defamatory to call the former youth president of an anti-Semitic organization, anti-Semitic. Because he denied it in court, and said he never knew about his organization’s infamous misconduct."
Ezra Levant, commentator/pundit, political personality

And so it is that Ezra Levant will appeal Justice Matheson's verdict that he was guilty of defamation in the case of then-law student Khurrum Awan, and must pay him $80,000; $50,000 in general damages and an additional $30,000 in aggravated damages. In 2007 Mr. Awan was involved in a human rights complaint brought by the then-head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry against Macleans magazine.

Macleans had published extracts from author Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. The excerpt was entitled "The Future Belongs To Islam", and Mr. Elmasry took exception to its tone, its descriptions, its conclusions, holding it to represent an extreme form of incitement through its Islamophobia focus, as he would have it. Mr. Elmasry had previously gained fame of his own by stating in a television interview that all Israelis regardless of civilian status were legitimate targets of Arab violence.

We can most certainly be identified in our values and preoccupations by the company we choose to keep. Mr. Awan bought into Mr. Elmasry's virulent hatred of Jews. And, as youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress he would have had to be blind and deaf not to be aware of the prevailing sentiments held therein and by its head. If one aligns oneself in close communion with anti-Semites it is usually because of shared sentiments.

That the campaign of three human rights complaints against the free speech values of Canadian society and the right to publish points of view gleaned from experience and observation and a sincere belief that the result of which represents a reality and expressing that reality borne out by actual and ongoing events brought the umbrage of a representative of a group the article published in Macleans represented failed, is testament to its lack of merit.

The hate speech section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was much discussed in the wake of that failed complaint, with the majority of Canadians expressing their view that it was being misused and that the law had more than sufficient hate speech clout to render the hate speech section utterly redundant, the tool of mischief makers. Since most of those in government agreed, the law was subsequently repealed by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Levant and his colleagues felt that Mr. Awan allowed himself to be manipulated by his trust in Mohamed Elmasry. Justice Matheson drew her conclusion that there was no close relationship of ideals and beliefs between Mr. Awan and Mr. Elmasry, that the controversial mindset held by one was not reflected in the beliefs of the other.

In her wisdom she ruled that there was "ample evidence before me demonstrating express malice on the part of [Mr. Levant]", in particular in that "he did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication." Mr Levant's lawyer's observation that those who tended to read his blog where the offending descriptions of Mr. Awan appeared, knew of the writer's penchant toward over-statement.

Mr. Levant was ordered to remove the posts in question within fifteen days, and pay the $80,000 fine levied.