Ezra Levant’s smears of a Crown counsel are unacceptable

Ezra Levant has made a career out of turning up the temperature, seemingly unconcerned about what gets burned in the process. His latest target is Ontario Crown prosecutor Moiz Karimjee, whom Levant calls a “partisan extremist” and claims was replaced on the Tamara Lich convoy case because he was emotionally out of control. Apparently, that was not inflammatory enough. Levant says Karimjee “has become famous for dropping charges against Hamas activists,” before finally dispensing with any pretense of subtlety and accusing him of “clearly pursuing a Muslim Brotherhood agenda.” 

I know Karimjee. I have done many cases with him, always from the other side of the courtroom. He was the lead Crown on the first murder trial I ever defended. More recently, I have represented people in protest cases he prosecuted, involving environmental demonstrations, peace protests and protests for justice in Palestine. I respect him. I do not always agree with him. Sometimes I think he is wrong on the law or asks for too much jail time. But I know he is a good, honest, and intelligent man of integrity. 

I should disclose that because it matters. Levant has a relationship that matters too. Tamara Lich works for Rebel News. Her employment has been used to seek permission for “work-related travel” while she serves a jail sentence in the community, for her actions during the convoy occupation. A later request to leave Canada for Rebel work, including a cruise, was recently denied. Levant can criticize Karimjee, but readers should know that Rebel employs one of the most prominent people Karimjee prosecuted. 

I criticize Crown counsel, police, judges and governments all the time. That scrutiny is necessary. But if you demand accountability, you also have an obligation to call out criticism that is misleading or reckless. 

Levant says Karimjee is “famous for dropping charges against Hamas activists.” I was counsel on some of those cases. There was no evidence that my clients were Hamas activists. They were protesters at pro-Palestinian peace demonstrations, calling for an end to violence or protesting Israel’s conduct in Gaza. You can disagree with them, but simply changing “pro-Palestinian protester” into “Hamas activist” does not make it true. 

Karimjee did agree to diversion or other non-conviction resolutions in some of those cases. That is not unusual. He has also exercised the same discretion when the politics do not fit Levant’s narrative. In one case, he withdrew an assault charge against a Jewish woman accused of pulling the hijab from a pro-Palestinian protester after she apologized, paid restitution and completed education about the significance of the hijab. That decision drew criticism from members of the Muslim community. 

Then there is the Aspenlieder case. I represented Mr. Aspenlieder after he threw red paint on the National Holocaust Monument and painted “FEED ME” on it as a protest related to Gaza. Karimjee argued the offence was motivated by hate and sought two years in jail. I argued that Aspenlieder’s motivation, however misguided his conduct, was humanitarian concern and not hatred of Jewish people – the judge agreed with me. 

That was not Moiz serving up a softball because of some imagined ideological sympathy. He took a hard position. I disagreed. We litigated it, and the judge decided. That is what is supposed to happen. 

The tweet that seems to have prompted Levant’s crash out arose from another sentencing, involving David Henschel, an employee of a Swiss munitions company who pleaded guilty to assaulting an anti-war protester in Ottawa. Karimjee sought jail. The judge imposed an absolute discharge and a $5,000 victim surcharge. Defence lawyers argue every day that the Crown asks for too much jail time. I certainly do. But disagreement over the sentence does not support an accusation that a prosecutor is advancing some international Islamist agenda. 

And this is where Levant’s wording matters. He does not expressly say Karimjee is acting this way because he is Muslim. He does not need to. Accusing a prosecutor named Moiz Karimjee of pursuing a “Muslim Brotherhood agenda” does that work for him. The dog whistle is not particularly subtle. 

If Levant thinks Karimjee got the law wrong, explain how. If he thinks the sentence sought in Henschel was excessive, compare it with similar cases. If he thinks prosecutorial discretion was inconsistent, show the inconsistency. Those are legitimate arguments. Calling protesters “Hamas activists” without evidence and using ordinary prosecutorial decisions to hint at extremist loyalties is not. 

Maybe Levant does not have all the facts. Maybe he did not bother to get them. Or maybe an honest accounting interferes with the point he wants to make. Whatever the explanation, he seems comfortable in baselessly smearing a career Crown prosecutor and undermining public faith in the justice system. 

I don’t practise defamation law, and Levant has considerably more experience in that field than I do. In 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an $80,000 libel judgment against him arising from attacks on lawyer Khurrum Awan. The trial judge found Levant had made little or no effort to fact-check some accusations and had acted with malice. Awan is Muslim too. That proves nothing about Levant’s motives, but you might think the experience would encourage caution before publicly connecting another Muslim lawyer to extremist organizations without solid evidence. 

After the National Council of Canadian Muslims condemned Levant’s comments about Karimjee, Levant responded: “I stand by every word, you Hamas lovers.” That gives a pretty good sense of the type of discussion he seems interested in having. 

Prosecutors have enormous discretion and should be criticized when they misuse it. But we also need them to be willing to make difficult decisions in politically charged cases without worrying that their name, religion or ethnicity will become the next online conspiracy theory. 

Public confidence in the justice system is fragile. There are many things in our courts, prisons, and police services that deserve criticism. But that criticism should be based on facts. We need to be able to argue in good faith about Palestine, Israel, protest, hate, policing, sentencing and prosecutorial discretion without turning every disagreement into evidence of corruption or secret loyalties. 

I know Moiz Karimjee. I have agreed with him, disagreed with him, lost to him and beaten him in court. He is not above criticism, and I doubt he would ever ask to be. Sometimes defending the justice system means criticizing the people inside it. And sometimes it means defending a good man from someone seemingly determined to defame him for social media clicks.