Canada is a lucky nation to have men like this (email from a soldier)

I sometimes get e-mails from Canadian Forces troops in Afghanistan, who are always thoughtful about the larger purpose of their mission. It's clear to me that they think and talk a lot about the moral importance of their mission. I believe they are true idealists. Of course they are: in a time of war, with a near-certainty of deployment to the front lines, it takes a very special and selfless person to volunteer to join the army.

If my correspondents are any indication, our troops truly believe in spreading our Canadian ideals of liberty, rule of law, democracy and peace. I don't think the media tells us about that heartening phenomenon enough, other than a few exceptional reporters like Christie Blatchford. (Here is one of her all-time best from Afghanistan.)

I received an e-mail yesterday from a soldier in Afghanistan. After I wrote back to thank him, he wrote to me again encouraging me to post it on my blog.

How does one repay such generosity? I'm not just talking about his financial generosity -- I'm talking about his generosity of spirit, his deeply-held belief in freedom and the personal sacrifices needed to sustain it.

He is far too kind to suggest that what I'm doing, from the warmth and safety of Canada, is in any way comparable to what he's doing, in real danger and discomfort, daily. I was stunned when I received his note. Here it is. Good God we're a lucky nation to have men and women like this. I don't deserve such praise. I hope as a nation we can live up to his standards.

I am a Canadian soldier currently deployed in Afghanistan. Yet even here, I keep abreast of events back in Canada. Upon learning of the possible upcoming lawsuit you may face for your stance against censorship and soft tyranny, I felt I had to somehow help out.

Therefore, today I have donated one thousand dollars to your defence fund. As you may know, our Risk and Hardship allowance (and a portion of our pay) is non-taxable, so don't worry; even though I'm pretty much a middle-class Joe at the rank of Sergeant, that sum isn't going to cripple me financially.

The reason I decided to give you some of my Risk and Hardship allowance is because you too are faced with hardship and risk. My brothers in arms and I are not the only ones trying to defend our freedoms and improve the lives of others. I see these qualities in yourself as well.

So, I've decided that some of the money that the federal government is paying me to defend people's freedom should be spread a little more evenly around to someone who's doing a job that is ultimately just as important as mine.

The Taliban want to take over Afghanistan not only because they seek power; for them, the control of the country is only a means to an end. What they truly want is to control how Afghans think, act and speak. Well, they're not the only ones. It irks me that some of the same traits of our enemies are so common and banal back in Canada.

So Ezra, thanks for being a sentinel on our home front. We'll fight the bastards over here, you fight their ideological brethren back in Canada. Also, best of luck in your defence; not that you'll need it, you seem to have a pretty solid case and the necessary skill to fend off your assailants.

If the plaintiffs see the writing on the wall, decide to withdraw their lawsuit and it turns out that you don't need the money, I ask that you give it to a registered charity of your choice. If you prefer, it's also fine if you make a donation to a federal politician who's willing to stand up and defend our freedom of speech.

PzLdr wrote:
"The Sergeant, in his letter to Mr. Levant suggested that he thought Mr. Levant would win his hearing, and that, in all likelihood the complainant against Mr. Levant would withdraw the complaint. He did." It is way too soon to cheer.

maine-iac7 wrote: "thank you - very good news - this craziness has got to stop - if not, none of us will dare open our mouths"

It is way too soon to cheer.

Here us an item from Levant's blog:

Kangaroo courts -- just not as fast as kangaroos By Ezra Levant on February 22, 2008 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | Trackback
A real court has slapped down a kangaroo court. The Federal Court of Canada has thrown out a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision to award a nine-figure sum to Canada Post workers who were allegedly "discriminated against" based on sex -- based on a complaint made 25 years ago.
Besides throwing out the case on its merits, the judge had this to say about the sloppy procedures at the CHRC:

"The long hearing before the Tribunal is reminiscent of the trial in Charles Dickens' Bleak House over the Jarndyce Estate," Justice Kelen wrote.
"Jarndyce v. Jarndyce concerned the fate of a large inheritance, which dragged on for many generations. The trial finally came to an end after legal costs had devoured the entire estate."
:::
"(The length of) this case offends the public conscience of what is reasonable and responsible," he said.
"Many of the original female complainants working as (clerks) at Canada Post in 1983 may be dead . . . The hearing lacked the discipline required of a court of law."

The judge is correct of course. But it misses the obvious point: the grinding, sloppy, slow, unregulated, arbitrary, costly, one-sided processes of the human rights commissions is not an accident, it's one of their central qualities. The process is the punishment. It's bad enough when that cost is passed on to all of us through our taxes (or, in this case, higher postage stamp costs). But in the case of individual defendants, the cost is crushing.
When the anti-Semitic imam who started the human rights case against me decided he was bored, he simply walked away -- leaving taxpayers with a $500,000 tab, and me with my legal bills (I'm not free yet; the Edmonton Muslim Council has filed an identical complaint against me, and that is still proceeding at the human rights commission).
That's not allowed in real courts, but it's how kangaroo courts operate. What an embarrassment to Canada.

Note the vexatious and duplicate proceedings allowed by the rules of this tribunal.

Mark Steyne is confronted by identical proceedings initiated in more than one Provincial tribunals and in the Federal one, each of which will have to be defended at his cost and prosecuted at the taspayers' cost. There is nothing to restrain or punish a malicious complainant. The complaint in itself and the need to have a lawyer to defend it becomes punishment for the defendent regardless of its merits or lack of merits.

apparently not. Even while our ‘NATO Commander’ in Afghanistan says that he enjoys ‘full support’ from NATO partners, most all NATO members are pulling out troops and trying to keep the ones they have there away from combat so they don’t have any casualties.

Reports on the ground say that the only contact with the Taliban are happening with us and the Danes (although the Brits did get attacked somewhat recently). Numbers of countries are not even allowing their troops to carry guns!!! This has become a public relations exercise and not an actual military action.

Thank G-d that Barack Obama will soon be available to tell the Taliban to stop trying to kill us (as we retreat from the region).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.