Commentary: Ezra Levant's Attacks on Crown Counsel Unacceptable

I often disagree with Moiz Karimjee, but I am obligated to defend him against unwarranted attacks 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 certain