Canada: Nine Months in Jail for Blasphemy Against Islam

Caution: If you happen to be in Canada, and you say something in public that hurts the feelings of Muslims, you may well be sentenced to nine months in jail.

That’s what happened to Eric Brazau in Toronto. Mind you, I’ve seen a video of Mr. Brazau’s street-corner theatrics, and he also wore offensive attire, made insulting facial expressions, and laughed derisively at or in the general direction of Muslims. So he was lucky to get off so lightly. In the face of such heinous crimes, the judge was lenient — he/she/it could have thrown the book at Eric Brazau.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading and transcribing this discussion on Ezra Levant’s TV program:


00:08   If you commit the crime of sexual assault in Canada,
00:12   are tried, convicted and sentenced, your average time in jail will be about…
00:16   two months. But if you hand out fliers that are mean
00:20   to the ‘religion’, the set of ideas called ‘Islam’, well, you
00:24   will serve nine months in jail. That’s not just a theory, that’s a fact.
00:29   That’s what Eric Brazau served as a result of a recent sentence, and joining me now
00:33   in studio to talk about this is Chris Schafer, Straight Talk contributor, and legal expert.
00:37   Chris its great to see you again. It’s the first time we have had you on the show in your new capacity
00:41   as a SUN News Network Legal Beagle. In the past you were with the Canadian Constitution Foundation,
00:45   but any way you slice it, you’re for freedom. (CS) I am for freedom Ezra, and happy to be here.
00:49   Well, one of the freedoms I hold dear is the freedom of speech. I believe it is the freedom upon which all others are based,
00:53   and in fact if you take away my other freedoms, keep me my free speech, and I’ll use it to fight
00:57   for those other freedoms. In this case, Eric Brazau,
01:01   well, you read the full case and I’d like you to tell our viewers the facts. What
01:05   did Eric Brazau do, to get himself charged, not with the Human Rights Commissions,
01:09   but with a police criminal charge? Give us the facts.
01:13   (CS) Basically, he stood in a street corner and was a little bit over the top,
01:17   outrageous some would say, dressed up in theatrical
01:21   outfits and handing out pamphlets and having protest signs against
01:25   Islam. And basically had a little show and tell on the street corner
01:29   (EL) Was that here in Toronto? (CS)Correct. (EL) Well, I see that all the time I go by Dundas Square,
01:33   they are giving out Korans. I mean, actually, most of the street theater there is the Korans being handed out.
01:37   (CS) Go by the consulate, Israeli consulate in Toronto almost any day
01:41   and there’s self hating Jews there protesting outside and
01:45   other groups, Muslim religion protesting, they’re never arrested, charged.
01:49   I’ve hung out at out occupy Toronto, I’ve been to Line 9 protests, I mean, their specialty is
01:53   theatrical words designed to generate hate. So this guy was dressed up,
01:57   and he was handing out these pamphlets, and he was just sort of — was he ranting or…
02:01   was he just talking? What was he doing? (CS) He was protesting, he was ranting, he was
02:05   acting out aspects that he believed…
02:09   (EL) He didn’t touch anyone? (CS) To my knowledge there was no violence, the guy,
02:13   if you read the court decision, was a — came off as quite
02:17   pleasant in some respects, but… (EL) So, but he was charged with
02:22   the criminal code provision of spreading hatred. (CS) Correct (EL) Hatred is a human emotion.
02:26   I mean, you can’t just remove that from your heart, any more than you can
02:30   say, ‘you are now in love with him’. (CS) You stick ten judges in a room, Ezra…
02:34   and you’ll get ten different opinions of whether this material constituted
02:38   hate, and we saw that in a supreme court decision recently, in the Whatcott supreme court decision,
02:42   looked at criticism of homosexuality in Saskatchewan. Different judges at different appeal courts reach
02:46   different conclusions of whether that material constituted hate.
02:50   I’m willing to bet the same thing here. (EL) Some people hate the Toronto Maple Leafs,
02:54   they love this sports team. Some people hate this political party and love that political party.
02:58   Some people hate an ex-girlfriend. Some people hate Vladimir
03:02   Putin. I mean, why aren’t I allowed to have the human emotion
03:06   called hate? And if you tell me I’m not allowed to feel that,
03:10   is that going to change my mind? I draw the line as when you do something
03:14   criminal with that hate, like punch someone in the nose. But merely having a hurt feeling…
03:18   or hateful feeling, how can you criminalize that, Chris? (CS) Well we have.
03:22   There’s criminal code provisions for that, you know yourself, you know very well…
03:26   the human rights provisions that can drag you before human rights tribunals.
03:30   (EL) Nine months in jail, this guy before his hearings. So you know, he served
03:34   nine months for no violence, no threats…
03:38   (CS) No threats to my knowledge; it was criminal harassment.
03:42   (EL) Lemme… Lemme — as in he was taking, he took a picture of some people in a burka or something. (CS) Correct.
03:46   (EL) I thought that was allowed to take pictures of people in a public place.
03:50   I guess not if you are the wrong species… I mean, imagine if this rule was applied to
03:54   anti-Christian advocates. Or atheist advocates.
03:58   Let’s quote from the ruling, I want to get the ruling on the record here. This is from
04:02   Justice Clements, who issued the ruling, let me quote here. “Brazau’s
04:06   TONE OF VOICE and CONTENT OF HIS SPEECH as captured
04:10   on his own audio recordings suggested he was very angry and had little interest
04:14   in discussion or debate.” Chris, I didn’t know it was against the law
04:18   to be very angry about things. And I didn’t know that you had to have an interest in debate
04:22   before you spoke. I didn’t know that was the law. (CS) Yeah, well, according to this judge
04:26   it is, again, it’s a very subjective section of the criminal code. (EL) That could apply to anyone!
04:30   What protester isn’t angry? If you’re not angry, you’re probably not protesting.
04:35   (CS) The unfortunate reality is that the knife doesn’t seem to cut both ways. (EL) Well, isn’t that the truth? Here…
04:39   Let me read another excerpt from the ruling here. Next one.
04:43   ”Clearly in that context he was not interested in nor did he intend to have
04:47   a discussion or debate on the ideas expressed in that document
04:51   I find he knew the material he was distributing would deeply wound
04:55   and anger Muslims.” I love how he uses the word ‘wound’. I know what a wound is;
04:59   if you have a wound you have to go to the doctor and get (treatment).
05:03   I didn’t know feelings, I didn’t know you could call a hurt feeling — I have no doubt he hurt some feelings…
05:07   just like people hurt my feelings, and everyone’s feelings can be hurt.
05:11   I didn’t know that wounding a feeling could put you in jail for nine months. If he just sexually assaulted
05:15   someone he would have been out in two months. (CS) Yeah, this is what we’re dealing with, Ezra,
05:19   you’ve been experiencing it, and this particular individual experienced the same —
05:23   these groups in society that use this sort of dark
05:27   politics or identity politics in order to quash out
05:31   language and speech they don’t want, and frankly they don’t want other people to hear.
05:35   I would much rather, like you and me Ezra, debate these ideas in a free society and let
05:39   the better ideas rise to the top and the weaker ones fall.
05:43   (EL) Yeah, you know, it’s funny — in a way, this judge is guilty of doing what he claimed Brazau did. This judge isn’t interested in debate…
05:47   this judge isn’t interested in discussion. This judge wants to put
05:51   people he disagrees with in jail! (CS) So what we need to do, Ezra, is —
05:55   I sort of have my hit-list of reforms that need, you need legislatures in this country,
05:59   federal and provincial, to get rid of these laws which restrict freedom, and if they’re not prepared to go that far,
06:03   then at least provide some interpretation, guidance to the
06:07   judges on how they apply this very subjective section of the criminal code,
06:11   and lastly, get rid of blasphemy laws in this country.
06:15   (EL) That’s what this is. This is a ‘fatwa’ against this guy for daring to criticize
06:19   the sharia Koran. Nice to see you on the show, Chris.

11 thoughts on “Canada: Nine Months in Jail for Blasphemy Against Islam

  1. “… and laughed derisively at or in the general direction of Muslims.”

    LOL! This would be funny if it were not so serious. Canada seems hell-bent on having European-style “hate” crimes up to and including “hate thoughts.”

    • Surprised they didn’t send the Pre-Crime init after him much earlier, ala Minority Report.

  2. For now I am glad we have the First Amendment to protect us from such outrageous charges but with Obummer and his drunken handling of executive orders will that right be lost someday.

  3. My concern for this man is his safety in jail during his nine months’ of incarceration. We heard the stories of felony Muslims being allowed to have Tommy Robinson in a locked room – cooperation of the guards in that particular lock-up.

    Does anyone know how corrupt the prison system is in Canada?

    In the US, one would have to consider it on a state-by-state or even a district-by-district basis to know how safe a sharia-fighter would be in the slammer. Here the breakdown is pretty much by color. I would guess that has an impact in Britain too…

  4. Just finished watching an Arte documentary on the North Korean gulag, called “Camp 14”. Watch it if you can find it, it is both horrifying and educating.

    In there, we see how a NoKo prisoner denounced his mother and brother for planning an escape, and as a result, they were both executed while he watched. He did not cry, nor have any feeling of remorse, since his mother/brother did the wrong thing, so in his mind, they got their just retribution.

    Returning to that Canadian story, I am sure that the judge was convinced that she was a positive agent for society in incarcerating that poor wretch. I am sure that by punishing him, she was punishing a potential Nazi, someone who could incitate even greater hatred.

    How is that possible? That’s because in Canada, anyone who does not believe that multiculturalism (code word for Muslim immigration) is good has been demonized since years.

    Same as the voter fraud that put Obama back into power in the U.S. in 2012: the people who defrauded the electoral system and the hackers who programmed the voting machines in favor of Obama (and disinstalled their hacks just after the election) were all convinced they were doing good, by preventing the evil Romney from winning. In the US, it is republicans, whites and capitalism that are demonized since years.

    The constant behind all this? A belief that one’s opponents are so wicked that **anything** is fair game against them.

    I think we will see more of this, this is only a beginning. Wait until they come after you for comments you post on the Internet.

  5. To hell with the istanbul process, they already have blasphemy laws in Canada to protect the islamic heresy from criticism. The world has gone mad, or are the authorities in receipt of petro dollars?

  6. Only a nine month custodial sentence? In Australia about 8 years ago an 18 year old lad wore a tee-shirt he silkscreened printed himself, it read: “Mohammed was a goat-f***ing pedophile”. He was charged with inciting racial hatred or somesuch. He appeared in a local court in a suit and tie with his parents, character references, etc and politely observed all courtroom protocols. He was, with no prior criminal record, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment! I did a double take, not 12 days community service or a 12 week suspended sentence, but a year in jail.

    There was no precedent and no sentencing guidelines: the PC nincompoop judge just took it upon him/herself to misuse their authority and exercise a socio-political function under the guise of judicial discretion instead of properly exercising judicial power. Which should have been: “A tee-shirt of poor taste and no doubt offensive to adherents of a particular religion*: charge dismissed”.

    He appealed to the District Court and the one year custodial sentence was upheld; with the judge adding gratuitous observations about how heinous his crime was. If the prosecutor had cross-appealed on severity, the District Court judge may well have given the lad more time in the slammer. The boy and his parents did not appeal any higher deeming it a futile waste of money and potentially risking a worse sentence: they read the wind and understood that he was being made an example of. One does not see anti-Muslim tee shirts being worn in the streets of Australian cities.

    Prisons are especially dangerous places for attractive 18 year old boys, not least because of the large proportion of violent Muslim inmates with a predilection for …. and a passion for vengeance. The boy’s life has no doubt been ruined, if he did not take his own life in prison as many teenagers do due to prison rape. For wearing a tee-shirt.

    During the exact same period a bunch of Lebanese-Muslim teenagers tore down and burned on ANZAC Day – Australia’s de facto national day of patriotic expression commemorating the ill-fated landings at Gallipoli in Turkey during World War 1 – the Australian flag flying from a Returned Servicemens League (“RSL”) Club. One was caught. He was charged with arson and sentenced to an hour long session of “sensitivity training”, ie having to be in a room as a couple of returned servicemen explained to him the symbolic significance of the Australian flag (he was Australian-born and thus a citizen) and of ANZAC Day. Just watching his faux contrite expression as he walked in to attend his “sensitivity training” session would have made any sentient being throw up in disgust. He, his relatives and friends, no doubt dined out on the risibility of this “punishment” for years afterwards. Whether he had any prior criminal convictions or not was not publicised; which suggests he did.

    * For many years in the 80’s and 90’s a group of bearded and hairy-legged gay men in the lead up to Sydney’s annual Gay and Lesbian (is that still a permissible description – I can’t keep up?) Mardi Gras dressed up in nuns’ habits/garb and paraded around calling themselves “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” – complete with placards impliedly describing in code their particular sexual indulgences. This was routinely televised and regarded by and propagated by the MSM as hilarious. I’m not at all religious myself, but I couldn’t help thinking that this may well be offensive to millions of Catholic Australians in general and clergy/nuns in particular. There were no charges brought against “The Sisters”. Needless to say the daring and courageous gay satirists who comprised “The Sisters” and their ilk have not ever mocked Islamic clerics and their well publicized injunctions against homosexuality. Can’t imagine why not.

  7. Julius, that particular hate-filled Catholicophobic display in the so-called “Gay” so called “Mardi Gras” (the name and timing of which itself is a hate-filled mockery of a Catholic feast day, i.e. “Fat Tuesday” the celebration of the day before the Church season of Lent begins) did not finish in the 90s, it is still going on.

    Among the countless other expressions of hatred against religious groups (the vast majority of which is directed against Christians (and especially Catholics) and Jews, also worthy of mention is the Greens Party Senator a few years ago who wore into Australia’s Parliament House and throughout an entire SITTING OF THE SENATE, a T shirt with a slogan (which I won’t repeat here) expressing hatred of Catholics and making a disgusting reference to the favourite Catholic prayer the Rosary. She got no official criticism, punishment or censure at all, not even for wearing incorrect attire in Parliament (the rules say that members of Parliament must wear business suits, and others have been thrown out of the Parliamkent for such offences as omittuing to wear a tie!) Neither did anyone in the media criticise her action. On the contrary, senators from various parties and journalists spent the session giggling like schoolgirls about how supposedly hilarious the slogan was.

    I agree with all commenters, the double standard not just in Canada but in all countries is sickening.

  8. From another article on this topic:

    “The promotion of those ideas was likely to produce enmity, scorn, ill will and malevolence on the basis of group affiliation.”

    Folks – given that this is Canada, where text from the Bible has been deemed hate speech, is it not time to file a prosecution in Canada against publishers of the Koran – for publishing a text “likely to produce enmity, scorn, ill will and malevolence on the basis of group affiliation.”? Or, at the very least, point out such texts in this trial? (assuming it goes to an appeal court)

  9. At issue is whether two cultures can coexist if Muslims refuse to accept one of the basic tenets of liberalism: the right of others to express their views, however offensive, without the threat of violent reprisal. Canada & Europe needs to address this.

    In addition: Muslims s should be insisting that their own media stop the almost-daily depictions of Jews and Christians as bloodthirsty cannibals and murderers of children. One tasteless act does not excuse another. Tolerance is a two-way street.

  10. It is most offensive that muslims in Canada declare all non followers as infidels , enemies
    as stated in the islam guidebook, for jihad, Koran , islam has criminal intent against non followers …harm to the pt of death
    as well islam
    has illegal intent against govt to over throw govt and replace with islam jihad ideology
    islam is illegal by Canadian Criminal Code, Canadian Constitution and many other This is islam written statement of war, hate , racism against Canada, Canadians, on our streets, in our schools, towards our Canadian laws, in our neighborhoods, around our children

    We are to defend ourselves from islam hate, criminal intent, illegal intent
    we are protect ourselves under all laws governing Our Protection against islam

    we are to inform others of these facts of islam , we are to protect ourselves on our streets, in our schools , in our neighborhoods from islam hate ….

    we are to do so without threat from anyone , anything in or out of Canada

Comments are closed.