"Who is Lenine?" Levine, sorry, typing while watching football.

Technically, the complaint was filed under Canada's anti-discrimination and "human rights" legislation, but political life in Canada has seen numerous prosecutions for political opinions under that country's oppressive hate speech laws. Government investigations for political opinions are thus an accepted part of their political culture.

There have NOT been "numerous" prosecutions, there have been a very small number for holocaust-denier types, few precisely because government investigations for political opinions are NOT an "accepted part of our political culture."

"Why are you saying I failed to comprehend that point when I made it expressly?" Then why did you cite (and video link) to a totally unrelated case? Either it is a case in point or it is not (it is not).

"But he's being investigated by the government ... it's the government that decides what fine he has to pay, along with other penalties, isn't that all true?" If an African American went to something like the equal opportunities office, and alleged denial if housing on racial grounds, would not/should not "the government" investigate? And once again, there is no "fine," there would be compensation for damages, paid to the complainant, if such damages have been established in an open hearing. And there are NO "other penalties" that you darkly refer to.

"... one of the reasons this sort of thing is so common in Canada is because the criminal hate speech laws have created a climate where it's the role of the Government to investigate and punish speech." Again, it is NOT "so common in Canada." Tell any Canadian that "it is the responsibility of the Government to investigate and punish speech" and get braced for a gale of laughter.

"Does the Commission have the authority to dismiss the complaint without interrogating ...?" Yes indeed. But most of the time, as a courtesy which I have had occasion to be grateful for, the investigator will contact all the parties so that they can have their say, and most cases, in my experience, are dropped at this point.

"Any complaint filed like this in the U.S. judicial system would be immediately dismissed and the person who brought it sanctioned. Really? If an African American filed suit against a local KKK leader on the grounds that the KKK leader had incited followers to drive by his house every hour in pickups wearing sheets and brandishing torches, the case would immediately be dismissed with sanctions? This is essentially what the complainant in the Levant case is alleging, ludicrous though it may be.

"Levant said on his site that everyone was barred from entering except his wife and lawyer. In a limited sense this is true. He was not compelled to meet with the investigator, but if he did agree to meet, the investigator quite sensibly felt that it would be a little difficult to conduct an interview in the midst of a circus. Much as he wants to make the event appear as some sort of legal proceeding, it was nothing of the sort. It was a voluntary interview with an investigator, who was attempting to discover if there was a basis for the complaint. (Incidentally, I strongly suspect that he wanted press and audience and cameras in the room because he knows full well that the chances it going to an open hearing are nil, denying him his great moment as the persecuted neocon.)

"This is still a case of the government investigating the political opinions someone expressed and threatening them with punishment for it. ... it's not as pernicious as criminal hate speech laws, but it's still an affront to basic concepts of free expression." Indeed it would be an affront if that were what it was. The problem is that it was nothing of the kind, much as Mr. Levant is trying to make it appear (which is what I meant about falling for his lies). This was a judicial branch of government investigating to see if there is basis to a complaint of damages from another citizen. It hasn't gotten so far yet, but if it did, the next step in the process would be to attempt to mediate a solution. Failing that, there would be a hearing, to establish whether a) there were actual damages, and b) the damaging actions were motivated by racism/discrimination/etc.

I've said this five or six times, we are talking here about COMPENSATION, not "fines" nor "punishment" (there are no punitive damages possible under human rights legislation). Canada's rules around contingency fee law tend to be much more restrictive than in the US, so one of the intents is to allow low-income persons to achieve redress, which implies an investigatory function for the commission. Yes, this sometimes does involve investigating opinions-- it is legal in Canada to believe that say people with darker skin are less fully human than Caucasians. It is even legal to say so. It is not legal to refuse to rent apartments to them or hire them because you hold that belief, which is what human rights commissions are for, and the type of case that makes up the vast bulk of their work. It is also not legal to urge hatred, persecution, violence against them, which is what the very rarely enforced provisions of the criminal code are for.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am with total agreement with you on the noxious effects of hate speech laws, and also that I am no great fan of Human Rights commissions, though perhaps for reasons other than yours, since I am rather better informed about them in this country. But you should be careful about making rather strong and offensive claims about another country when you don't have much in-depth knowledge, and also should not take the version of events of a character like Mr. Levine at face value.

"Levant" not "Levine", the Manning brothers are screwing with my head.