You can read the full Farhan Chak archive to see how things went quickly downhill for Farhan Chak.  As a Liberal nominee, he was obligated to report on any writings that could come back to haunt him, to report on any run-ins with the law (regardless of the disposition), and to be generally truthful.

It appeared that Farhan Chak failed those three tests:

• He did not reveal his conspiracy-laden writings that declared Islamic terrorism to be a fiction concocted by Western intelligence agencies as a cover for attacks on Western citizens perpetrated by their own governments.
• He did not report that he had been arrested for firing a shotgun into the doorway of a nightclub after being ejected for fighting, though no charges were laid after the witnesses suddenly decided they had identified the wrong person.
• He did not reveal that he had no business calling himself a PhD (which he had been doing repeatedly) because he had yet to have the degree conferred to him.

Well, a short time after the revelations led to Chak's resignation, I received a notice of intent to file a lawsuit against me.  Similar lawsuits were filed against the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and the Western Standard, and other individuals who worked on the story.

Nothing ever came of the notice.  Certainly the time limit to follow-up has long since passed.  The demands included scrubbing the internet clean of all the Chak-related posts, and for the major online sites (including the newspapers) to carry an apology to Chak on the home page for two years (I've removed the names of the individuals):

Mr. Chak requests that you issue a formal apology which will be stated as follows:

The [newspaper] apologizes to Mr. Chak for incorrect statements made by [reporter] regarding Mr. Chak. These comments were incorrect and harmed the reputation of an impeccable Canadian. This newspaper has removed all material relating to Mr. Chak from it’s [sic] website and apologizes to Mr. Chak for any defamatory material on the site which affected him personally or his family. Furthermore, the News paper [sic] apologizes for any other statements made on any other medium as well as comments made by bloggers and other individuals who appeared on the [newspaper] website or any of the linked websites.

Mr. Chak requests that he be provided with the opportunity to provide a statement of contradiction, which will appear on the front page of the [newspaper]. As well, the aforementioned Statement of Contradiction on the front page of the [newspaper's] website for at least two years on the from page of your Website. And you must maintain the website for the two year period to ensure that Internet users can access the website.

Yeah, two years!  And an apology on behalf of bloggers?

There was more.  Like a promise to never write again about anyone related to Farhan Chak...ever.

Well, you can't extract that sort of promise in a libel lawsuit -- you can only address what had actually happened.

Franky, it was weird.

I never responded, but I understand that legal representatives of the other potential defendants went hard after Arman Chak, Farhan Chak's brother and a lawyer.  He was leading the charge on the intended suit (though another lawyer was handling the paperwork).  Basically, they dared him to go ahead with it.

As Ezra Levant reveals in his post on Arman Chak, nothing came of it.

So why are we talking about it?  Apparently Arman Chak of the two-year apology / front-page rebuttal is also a member of Alberta's Human Rights Commission.

As Ezra points out, Arman and Farhan Chak share many of the same views.  Arman wrote about the split of Bangladesh from Pakistan as a bad thing, an affront to the Islamic concept of Ummah.  Though it is has various interpretations, clearly Arman seems to think that one Islamic state is better than two, so you have to wonder if for him Ummah invokes the concept of the Caliphate where Islamic law is the secular law of the land.

And this person passes judgment in human rights cases?

If you are wondering what that might mean -- and it must be said that it might very well mean nothing at all, and that Arman Chak's work at the HRC is exemplar, no matter who appears before him -- you should keep an eye on Ezra Levant's blog.  He is asking for information in particular about how Syed Soharwady, the Islamic cleric who tried to have Ezra punished for printing the Danish Mohammed cartoons, managed to have an HRC complaint against him dismissed out of hand.

Did Arman Chak have anything to do with this?

What I'm more interested in knowing is whether or not Arman Chak, the radical Pakistani nationalist who despises anyone who weakens the Muslim ummah, has handled the files of another radical Pakistani nationalist who despises the weakening of the Muslim ummah. I'm talking about Syed Soharwardy.

Soharwardy isn't just the subject of a human rights complaint at the federal HRC -- he was tagged in Alberta's HRC, too. But just last week, Soharwardy issued a press release on this anti-Christian, anti-Semitic website, gloating at the fact that the complaint against him -- by these women -- was rejected by the HRC out of hand.

Why was the Alberta HRC complaint against Soharwardy rejected where the identical CHRC complaint against him was not? Did Arman Chak, fellow Pakistani radical, run interference for him? What other files has Chak handled? Anything related to Muslims, or his nemeses, Indians?

I wonder if Ezra is just curious, or if he already has an idea of what he's going to find out.  A good lawyer never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
 Farhan Chak  Arman Chak  Ezra Levant  Human Rights Commission  Liberal Party  Syed Soharwady 

Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!