 Print
Khuuram Awan Vesus ezra ``Truth Always Prevails``
12-30-2014
In a battle of David vs Goliath, David wins – Not Goliath!
This is exactly what happened to young Muslim lawyer, Khurram Awan, member of Canadian Islamic Congress, CIC, Youth Vice President. He had challenged in BC Human Rights Tribunal, Canada’s largest circulating news magazine MacLean’s over an article published in 2006, titled, “The Future Belongs to Islam” authored by a controversial journalist, Mark Steyn. The article drew a picture, painting all Muslims, especially those living in the west as part of a big Islamic Conspiracy of taken over the west by multiplying birth rates etc, among others. Mr. Awan at the time was an articling law student in Saskatchewan found MacLean’s article to be offensive towards Muslims and used his knowledge of law to challenge the article as violation of fundamental basic human rights, under BC Human Rights Code. The application was accepted and case forwarded to the tribunal for adjudication.
CIC fought the case vigorously with great media attention and focus as this could have been a test case of what construes as freedom of speech and what is considered “Hate Speech.”
A team of Muslim lawyers, and four other Muslim law article students, including Mr. Awan, represented CIC before the tribunal. However, since Mr. Awan took up this initiative, throughout the trial Mr. Awan became the central focus of the trial and took the brunt of the media for attempting to “muzzle” freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, CIC did not succeed before the tribunal but a recent victory by Mr. Awan against the Mr. Ezra Levant for Libel and Defamation.
On November 27, 2014, Ontario Superior Courts, Honourable Justice Matheson ordered Mr. Levant to pay Mr. Awan $80,000, and remove all inflammatory articles published on his website, against Mr. Awan within 15 days.
Arabic proverb, “He, who laughs lasts, laughs the best.” It is certainly true in this case. A young Muslim Lawyer, Mr. Awan whom had taken up a battle on behalf of all Muslims, all on his own with limited resources, knowledge, and took the brunt of the media was rewarded for his patience, and perseverance.
During the hearing before the BC Human Rights Tribunal, Mr. Levant posted 9 blog articles on his “Shock-Jock” website openly calling or suggesting, or even labelling Mr. Awan as “a Jihadist, a liar, a perjurer, an anti-Semite, a con artist, unfit to be a lawyer and has acted in a conflict of interest.”
Levant’s lawyer, Iain MacKinnon, said the defence is primarily one of fair comment, and was based on Mr. Awan’s two day testimony before the tribunal.
Mr. Awan’s lawyer Mr. Brain Shiller told the courts that the comments “were made in the context of Levant trying to discredit human rights tribunals, which the host refers to as kangaroo courts” Mr. Shiller added, “It’s not about the truth,” Shiller said in his opening statement to Ontario Superior Court Judge Wendy Matheson. “It’s about denormalizing human rights commissions and the roadkill is Mr. Awan.”
Mr. Awan told the courts “that seeing Levant’s posts under the headline “Awan the liar” was “very upsetting.”
“For myself seeing these blog posts also came up at a time when I was articling,” Awan testified. “My call to the bar was planned. It went right to my credibility as a lawyer or a lawyer-to-be.”
Whatever the defence arguments might be, it was not sufficient to persuade Hon. Justice Matheson who awarded the judgement in favour of Mr. Awan.
Justice Matheson shot down Levant’s fair comment defence on the grounds that his comments were motivated by malice toward Awan for his connection to Elmasry. She also pointed out “numerous” errors in Levant’s reports.
“He did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of … Nor did he accurately report what was taking place at the hearing,” she wrote.
“As for the nature and seriousness of the defamatory statements, they are extremely serious. They go to the heart of both the plaintiff’s reputation as a lawyer and as a member of our society.”
Awan’s lawyer, Brian Shiller, told the Star his client was happy with the decision.
“Awan is pleased that the court has ruled against Mr. Levant and restored his hard-earned reputation.”
Not only did Justice Matheson find that Mr. Levant failed to check his facts before publishing his statements, she also found that he demonstrated malice towards Mr. Awan. The finding of malice added another $30,000 to the $50,000 awarded for general damages, posted Butterfield law on its website.
This case demonstrates the strength of the Canadian Legal Justice System and its ability to protect victims against intolerance and bigotry.
Public’s reaction towards Mr. Awan was also favourable both before the trial and after the trial, where majority of the people online or social media were supportive of Mr. Awan and felt that he had been wrongfully singled out for the stand he had taken as a young lawyer.
There were more than 190 comments posted on Globe and Mail’s website thus far regarding this matter, samples of some, which we are including here.
One person wrote, “I did not get past the first line. Ezra Levant is not a journalist. He is everything a professional journalist is taught not to be. He is a pariah whose work is a blight on media and on our country.”
Another person wrote, “I find it hilarious that Mr. Levant puts his hand out so readily to accept donations. On top of his charm, he is a charity case apparently. One wonders how long Sun News will last with gems like this making the headlines.”
Richard from Vancouver wrote, “I haven’t seen whatever Mr. Levant published, but if he did indeed say that this gentleman is “a liar, a perjurer, an anti-Semite, a con artist, unfit to be a lawyer and has acted in a conflict of interest” (that seems to be the plaintiff’s characterization of what was said) then Mr. Levant had better be able to prove it. We live in a civilized country with robust defamation laws. There’s even a Criminal Code offence of criminal libel, although the authorities seem to use it mainly against their own critics.”
At the end Truth Prevailed, Justice rendered, and Mr. Awan had the last laugh, laughing all the way to the bank with $80K richer than he had entered the court.
We congratulate Mr. Awan on his moral victory and commend the courts for serving the interests of justice.
Footnotes:
|