A special present for truewest: anti-Soharwardy post redone

I decided to post a little number on the Western Standard's shotgun blog entry regarding their current legal troubles.

The blog page summarizes it fairly well, but reading the PDF file that was a scanned copy of the complaint is probably essential to getting a good feel for the story. I'll address the scan itself too.

First though, I wanted to reprint the posting I made there, only with proper emphasis editing (the _this is my shouting_ convention from Usenet should be replaced with bold or italics as the need arises), correcting the spelling mistakes (or typing mistake as the case may be), and a final "screw you" sort of note that I wanted to put in the blog entry, but figured I'd save it for here. Ezra's in enough hot water over this as it is. (Yet I still don't actually like the guy.)

I was also going to make a "reposted from" comment in the blog, but the purpose of that was essentially just to piss off truewest. Somehow referring to him in the post title and then letting him stumble across it seems a more fitting affront. I might be wrong. It would be a first, for sure.

So anyways, here is the post:

Forgetting ABCs, isn't the crux of the argument made by Mr. Soharwardy that Ezra and the Western Standard are responsible for any of the negative mail he may have received?

I admit here Ezra that I haven't read the article on the Jyllands-Posten cartoons that started this uproar, but the complaint seems to indicate that isn't a problem. I also admit I never listened to you on CBC Radio at 7am, mostly because I couldn't bear listening to the CBC but also in a large part because I don't believe there really is a 7 o'clock in the morning too.

But it seems that the main problem is that you brought up Soharwardy's name. He writes that he was going to attach something (a transcript?) from the CBC/CTV but never did, so I'm going to have to go on a limb here, but you mentioned him. You brought up his opposition to printing the cartoons. Possibly you even mentioned his organization (Islamic Supreme Council of Canada). This outrageous action clearly brought upon the emails.

In short, Mr. Soharwardy is trying to claim that its the media's fault that people found out about him and his group and therefore had the awareness required to send him emails both outrageous and not. (I'm not sure exactly what was so hateful about "You are the most sour, excitable, unrealistic, humourless bunch I've ever seen"... definitely not a ringing endorsement, but if that's hatred then everybody who's ever walked past a group of Jr. High students has been subject to a hate crime)

Naturally, of course, he doesn't indict the CBC in this "suit", but he really should. If Soharwardy truely believes, as it seems, that its Ezra's fault that people knew about his disgust over the cartoons, then the CBC is equally complicit. It seems that Soharwardy wanted to be outraged in secret...or worse, be publicly opposed but not have anybody present any rallying opposition to him!

Imam Syed B. Soharwardy, this is the gayest complaint I have ever seen.
Now, as I promised, a few things I found odd when I read the scan of the complaint.

Firstly, numerous pages have a stamp indicating "The Commission has blocked information for privacy reasons." Yet I can tell you who sent some of these emails: "wplower" <evansgramp@telus.net>, "D M" <darrylmac88@com<, "Ms. Wormwood" <narniaboy@com>, "amirrabas ahmadina", "Saleem Akra Bla Muhammedbla" <akrablabla@hotmail.com>, "Lvnn" <lvnnadore@yahoo.ca>, and "Pissed Off" <muslims_hypocrites@yahoo.com>. So what information did the Commission block? The email address of the ISCC! I'm sorry, but don't you think they blocked out the relatively obvious recipient, only to include the assumably anonymous authors? Unless these people are to be brought up on "hate crime charges", why are the authors identities seemably the only ones left in?

Secondly, the spelling and grammar in this are atrocious. If the ISCC has so many brilliant legal minds at their disposal, why can't one of them draft this application?

Thirdly, as I refer to in the post, there is a sentence which states "I have attached few of his Statements but his on air statement can be alifained(??) from CBC, CTV, and other media organizations". As least, this is what I've pieced together (that one word is completely unintelligible, and I'm not sure if it might be a scanning error). This sort of inclusion in a formal application requesting a quasi-governmental organization investigate a private citizen is completely uncalled for, and should alone be grounds for dismissal. After all, what kind of submission just says "call the CBC to find out what he said"? Why don't you do that yourself Soharwardy, and include what they said? Could it be that the complaint is harmed by the inclusion of Ezra Levant's actually words? Additionally, the talk of "other media organizations" has absolutely no merit: even simply saying "CBC, CTV" is insufficient. Its bad enough that the poor CBC/CTV [never thought I'd hear that phrase on this blog -ed] has to go through everything they've ever recorded from Ezra Levant on any media (radio, TV, website article, etc.), but to expect the commission to seriously entertain complaints that hateful things about you were said on some media somewhere is absurd. Name the media, name the date, name the program, and include the transcripts yourself, Syed Soharwardy you lazy asshole.

Fourthly, lets all give mad props to Calgary City Police. Sohardwardy writes in his complaint that "Unfortunately the response from Calgary Police is not reasonable, therefore, I am hoping that I will get justice from the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission". (Notice that AHRCC didn't get their name spelt wrong).

Fifthly, why are the Western Standard's advertisements for Luxury Kelowna Villas and the Canadian Zinc Corporation included in the application alongside the articles in the paper. Are the two companies considered implicated, or is it just a lazy and/or stupid photocopier (of which I mean a person who did the photocopying, not the machine itself)?

Extending my second point again, the above "quote" I included above required me to properly spell words that were questionable. If I go letter-for-letter from the scan (again, it may actually be the scan itself), I get this phrase: "I have attached few of hn Startemants but hio an air stalement caibe alifa___d fran CBC, CTV, and other media organifabn". Remind me never to work for the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

Re-aquiring my third point, the "other media" were covered in his form on page 4: "From February 9-February 14 on the media, CBC, CTV, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Globe and Mail" Oh yeah... "Also Western Standards Magazine". Wow.. the mainstream media sure ran with this story, didn't they?

Okay, I've really ran out of points. But briefly touching on my second one, Soharwardy writes that on February 13th on CBC Radio, Ezra Levant insulted him and called him....er... I don't know. Perhaps Ezra used "radical" as his insult. But if I'm to believe this form, I see the word "Rachial". Did Ezra Levant compare the leader of a group of Islamic nutbars with a character popularized by my future wife Jennifer Anistan? Ohh, them's fightin' words!

Bonus link #1: The ISCC has spelling and grammatical errors on their press release. Now I made an error or two on the Shotgun blog comment posted above, but I wasn't exactly preparing a doctoral thesis or, say, writing a press release!

Bonus link #2: Imam Soharwardy is losing the opposition-free battle, at least online. "Syed Soharwardy: Thug Life" writes The London Fog. Other blogs call Soharwardy radical, or anti-Semitic, or a few other nasty things. I think I'm the only one so far to use a homosexual slur, so that's pretty cool.