Thursday, August 07, 2008

Geez, Ezra - Want a Brick of Cheez

... to go with your whine?

It seems that the AHRC just took a plank out of the soapbox that Ezra's been grandstanding on lately by rejecting a complaint against him.

Apparently this isn't good enough for Ezra, so he's gone on quite the little temper tantrum about it all:

The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam – on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage “lawfare” against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project.

Fire. Them. All.


I have no idea where Ezra gets the figure he posting here as if it's fact - I don't imagine that the AHRC publishes per-case costs somehow, and their annual budgetary reports certainly don't contain that kind of granularity. I imagine Ezra's talking through his hat here.

However, even if two complaints did add up to $250,000 to investigate and ultimately reject, what's the big deal. How many police investigations of 'criminal complaints' go on for years only to finally end up with no charges laid, or a conviction overturned? (It's not like Canada hasn't had its share of wrongful convictions) How much did it cost to overturn Milgaard's conviction? - and unlike Ezra, Milgaard spent time in prison - not just paying lawyer's fees.

If Ezra wants to wear the mantle of being persecuted, perhaps he should consider his lot in relation to others who have had much worse treatment.

But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing.


Bullfeathers, Ezra. Freedoms are not an absolute - they never were, never are, and never will be. Essentially a complaint was made that you had abused the principle of Freedom of the Press. That complaint was investigated and found to be unpersuasive. Your problem is what, precisely?

Your freedom of the press does not give you carte blanche to publish anything you want, and you know it. There are all sorts of guidelines and rules that come into play. You knew that publishing those cartoons was going to raise someone's ire. You chose to publish them, even though it wasn't necessary to do so. You gambled, you took a chance and it had a price.

Deal with it, Ezra.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait for Ezzie's outrage when he gets notified about the next complaint. And believe me, there's another one coming......

What makes this fatheaded whiner think that the law doesn't apply to him?

see his posting "I've shall now commit a hate crime".

Anonymous said...

You make some good points but do not reference something Ezra said that makes sense. If the complaint were brought in court, he could, as the successful party, claim for costs against the unsuccessful party. This discourages frivolous litigation. However with the AHRC he has no mechanism to recoup his costs.

That is wrong.

MgS said...

However with the AHRC he has no mechanism to recoup his costs.

Ezra incurred the costs he did because he went on a public grandstanding expedition. His choice, his responsibility.

BTW - I don't think you get to sue to recoup costs if you bring a lawyer in while you are the subject of a criminal investigation either.

Anonymous said...

Ezzie is full of BS when he claims that the Complainant's costs are paid by the Commission.

There is no real reason for incurring costs at all at the investigation stage of a complaint. In fact, the matter can be handled in a mediation forum where everything is "without prejudice".. Nothing can be used at any hearing and everything is confidential.

However, Ezzie the Rant likes to grandstand.

The Cass Review and the WPATH SOC

The Cass Review draws some astonishing conclusions about the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) . More or less, the basic upshot of the Cass Rev...