SteynOnline

I don't even know what any of this stuff means, but eat your heart out, Warren!

PS In this post, Warren refers to "the young Muslim students who objected to Mark Steyn calling them vermin". Where exactly in the alleged hate crime do I call them "vermin"? A timely answer would be appreciated. Or do I have to do the old Kinsella shtick and advise him to "retain counsel"?

Ezra Levant has another stirring tale from the front line of Canada's commitment to "human rights":

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is grinding an Ontario restaurateur who asked a customer to stop smoking marijuana in his doorway.

As with last week's shakedown of a cosmetic surgeon who declined to perform a labiaplasty for a transsexual dissatisfied with her new parts, the eventual verdict is largely irrelevant: The process is the punishment. It seems almost certain that this restaurateur will lose his business. The trick is not to attract the attentions of the "human rights" enforcers. But, even if you're not a notorious hatemonger like me, in an age when Canadian "human rights" have dwindled down to the human right to a labiaplasty even when the guy says he wouldn't know what he was doing, and the human right to smoke pot in some other fellow's restaurant, trying to avoid catching the eye of this racket is harder than it looks.

Kate McMillan puts it in a nutshell:

Where Stormfront leads, others are sure to follow!

When CP reporter/Kinsella stenographer Joan Bryden did her "White supremacists back Keith Martin" story, she got so much critical response that she sent out a form response, as follows:

This news story has generated considerable comment from readers who felt it was unfair and biased to lead with the fact that Keith Martin's private member's motion had won support from a white supremacist group. Some further felt it unfairly implied that anyone who opposes sect. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act must be an extremist.

I submit that the story simply related factually a development which caused a stir on Parliament Hill last Friday. Liberals, including Dr. Martin himself, were not pleased to find the MP's motion endorsed on the Stormfront website. At least one rival party gleefully drew reporters' attention to the site. In the wake of the unwelcome publicity, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's office made it clear that neither the leader nor the party support Dr. Martin's motion.

The factual relation of events does not attempt to judge whether Dr. Martin's motion is right or wrong and it certainly doesn't suggest that he or anyone who agrees with him is an extremist. Indeed, the headline makes it clear that the Stormfront endorsement was unwelcome.

The story gave Dr. Martin considerable space in which to disavow Stormfront and explain his own reasons for introducing the motion. It specifically relates that he was motivated by the concerns of his constituents. The fact that he said wouldn't be deterred by his party's opposition or unwelcome endorsements from "crazy, peripheral groups" like Stormfront speaks to the depth of his conviction.

This was not intended to be the definitive story investigating every angle of the controversy over the human rights act. It was a news story about a specific development that day.

I might note that Paul Fromm, whose endorsement of Martin's motion was featured on the Stormfront website, has caused other parties consternation in the past. Both the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties were embarrassed to find themselves associated with him and had to answer for it publicly. It would seem unfair to exempt the Liberals from similar scutiny now that he is causing them some embarrassment.

I hope this answers some of the concerns.

Best,

Joan Bryden

JOAN BRYDEN
REPORTER-EDITOR
OFFICE: 613-231-8627
FAX: 613-238-4452
thecanadianpress.com

Now that PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, The Globe And Mail, Noam Chomsky et al have all signed up for their SS jackboots, maybe it's time for a follow-up story? E-mail Joan here.

Warren Kinsella fires off yet again the only weapon in his armory - demanding to know whether I and Jonathan Kay et al are "proud that the most notorious Holocaust denier on the planet is now repeating their lies".

By "most notorious Holocaust denier", Warren means the British historian David Irving. In fact, "the most notorious Holocaust denier on the planet" is President Ahmadinejad, who denies the last Holocaust even as he urges on the next one. Warren doesn't seem to have much to say on that score, which is a pity. Nobody needs "brave" (Warren's word) men like Richard Warman who dedicate their lives to battling an enemy vanquished 60 years ago. It's easy to pick the right side when it's all settled and retrospective.

But, since "guilt by association" is the only game Warren knows how to play, look at it this way. Yes, David Irving's on my side, and David Icke, the man who believes the Queen is a shape-shifting blood-drinking space lizard. But who's on Warren's side? Mohamed Elmasry, who thinks all Israelis over 18 are a legitimate target for murder, and Khaled Mouammar, who smeared Bob Rae for the crime of having a Jewish wife. Are you "proud" to have the "most notorious" Judeophobes in Canada on your team, Warren?

More to the point, they're the only guys on his team. Over on my side, we have not only David Irving but Keith Martin, Liberal Member of Parliament; The Globe & Mail, Canada's establishment newspaper; two-time Canadian columnist of the year Margaret Wente; the CBC's Rex Murphy; Toronto Star columnist Kelly Toughill; leftie colossus Noam Chomsky; and PEN Canada, an organization headed by former viceregal consort John Ralston Saul and run by the cream of the CanCon literati - Margaret Atwood, Rohinton Mistry, David Cronenberg, Louise Dennys, etc.

Are they all Nazis just because they're on the same side as notorious Jew-haters like David Irving, Ezra Levant, Jonathan Kay and Mark Steyn?

So, just to recap, on Team A: Kinsella, Elmasry, Mouammar; on Team B, Steyn, Levant, Chomsky, PEN Canada, The Globe & Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, Calgary Herald, etc, etc. You do the math.

There is no credible defence of Section 13 - and, for those nancy boys cranking out the flaccid spin in the Justice Department, there is no political downside for any member of the House of Commons in calling for its repeal.

As for Warren ("Swastika John") Kinsella, this is his fight, too, even if he doesn't know it. Section 13 is, at best, superfluous. Which is why, in the last six years, Richard Warman has been the plaintiff on every single case. That in itself makes the case for abolishing it: It is poorly drafted and corruptly administered. There is no other section of Canadian law that exists purely for the benefit of one single citizen. The problem is the Warman racket has now been seized on by Elmasry & Co to advance a far more ambitious agenda.

Join the battle, Warren. Your children will thank you for it.

[UPDATE: Even the Rabble/Babble lefties aren't hot for Section 13. Give it up, Warren. It must be pretty lonely with just you, a couple of Jew-haters, and a shakedown artist.]