SteynOnline

I have to say these London lefties make their Canadian cousins look drearily provincial. Take The Independent's strangely Steyn-fixated Johann Hari. When he runs across a neo-Nazi, instead of reporting him to a human rights commission, or whining that he's infiltrated the Liberal backbench, or shaking him down to pay his mortgage, or recoiling in mock-horror like a summer-stock Lady Bracknell, Mr Hari understands the Nazi boys are just gagging for a bloody good rogering and shags 'em senseless.

It's like Warren's "come hither" fantasies about Kate, except, instead of just drooling about it, he gets on with it. Wouldn't that be great? Over at Big City Lib, gay-sex fantasies about neo-Nazis already seem to be their only major turn on. [Scroll down to 10.50pm comment and 11.17pm comment*.] Don't worry, you wouldn't have to give up Section 13. If you hate yourself in the morning, just file a complaint against yourself at the nearest HRC.

Oh, Mr Hari also seduces fierce young Muslim men he picks up at mosques. When I meet Khurrum Awan in court in BC, remind me to hit on him.

[*or, as I like to think of them, Human Rights complaints-in-waiting] 

Following my item below on Richard (Lucy) Warman declining to "allow" David Icke to speak, David Icke writes:

Hello Mark .. saw your post. You'll have to let me have your secret for knowing it all.
 
The way to protect freedom for everyone, you and me, is to unite in mutual respect - not resort to pathetic and oh so predictable 'yawn', 'yawn' abuse.
 
In your own way you are as stuck in the box as Warman. It's just a different box, that all.
 
Sad. I hoped you were bigger than that and diverse opinions could come together behind the banner of freedom for all. Clearly not.
 
David

Oh, come on, David, you don't need me to let you into my secret for knowing it all. You've famously found the secret for knowing it all - the secret of the universe, the Illuminati and all the rest - and I entirely support your right to let everybody in on it in Britain, Canada and every jurisdiction on the planet. I'm with you all the way - on your right to say whatever you like. Likewise, I'm exercising my right to say that I'm personally skeptical that the Queen is a shape-shifting space lizard. That's all.

Like many people, David Icke has had the misfortune to attract the attention of Lucy Warman. In that dispute, I'm with David. I agree with what Ezra Levant has to say:

Icke comes across as a very charming and well-meaning man who truly believes that he must share his alien theories with the world; it's the street punks in Warman's "anti-racist coalition" who come across as the uncivil ones...

The smartest line in the segment comes from an older lady in line to see Icke who, when challenged with his foolish theories, says "so what. Let him make a fool of himself if that's what he's doing." That's what grown-ups say -- and grown-up societies too. They are tolerant of eccentrics like Icke, and tolerant the motley crew that harasses him.

But Warman and his young "activists" are upset that no-one cares. So they decide to do what one of Warman's wards calls "the ultimate expression of free speech": they're going to physically attack Icke in public, by throwing a pie in his face, to "humiliate" him. Uh, that ain't free speech fellas, that's assault. Warman himself proposes the idea...

Supporters of Canada's "bravest human rights activist" should watch the video clips of this documentary. Perhaps the best defence Lucy Warman could enter for his n**ger c*nt remarks about Senator Cools would be to argue that he's been mentally traumatized by so many years with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. To anyone not marinated in the sludge of PC brainwashing, the only "intolerant" "supremacist" on display here is Warman, whipping up his army of adolescent thugs.

It would be entirely appropriate if the very last Section XIII case before the abolition of this absurd "law" were to be a complaint against Warman for his Senator Cools post.

I'm still waiting for a reply from the Minister of Justice.

Here's an interesting post on the odds of former CHRC investigator and current CHRC uber-plaintiff Richard ("Here's Lucy!") Warman not being the author of the n**ger c*nt post. This may explain why the usually litigious Warmanger is strangely silent, and even his designated Smoke Blower is no longer threatening "punitive damages".

One way to settle the issue, of course, might be for someone to file a Section XIII complaint with the CHRC solely on the basis of the Senator Cools post. Aside from anything else, forcing the CHRC either to accept or reject the complaint would be an interesting exercise in seeing how far they're prepared to take their cosy relationship with their former employee. Lucy Warman may be "the bravest human being" the Smoke Blower has ever met, but it's worth bearing in mind that he is, in law, a humble citizen just like everybody else. I'm dubious about "entrapment" by law enforcement officers but Lucy does not even qualify for that dispensation. He can't, in effect, create a crime and then plead he's only doing so as part of his "investigation" into a crime. He's not the RCMP. 

What we have here is compelling circumstantial evidence of collusion between a serial plaintiff and his enablers at the CHRC.

I've written to the federal Minister of Justice about this matter. No reply so far.

If you want to know what's gone wrong with the Canadian state's conception of human rights, it's perfectly distilled by the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission's former longtime investigator and current serial plaintiff speaking to Britain's Independent On Sunday:

He has taken all the conspiracy theories that have ever existed and melded them together to create an even greater conspiracy theory of his own. His writings may be the work of a madman, or of a genuine racist. Either way, they are very dangerous. There is an unpleasant anti-Semitic undercurrent in his work that must be brought to people's attention. If he's unstable, then so are his followers, who hang on to his every word. What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?

Those are the words of Richard Warman, interviewed by Jason Cowley for The Independent On Sunday on October 1st 2000. (It's not available online, but you can fish it out of Lexis-Nexis or do it the old-fashioned way and rummage through the microfilm at your municipal library.) Mr Warman was speaking of David Icke, former Coventry City goalie and BBC sports anchor turned ...well, "turned" pretty much covers it. David believes in a secret world government run by child-abusing Satanist Illuminati controlled by the Queen and the Bush family who are, in fact, reptilian humanoids descended from the blood-drinking space lizards of the star system Alpha Draconis. As I recall, a friend of the late Princess of Wales has confirmed to him Her Royal Highness' belief that the Royal Family are shape-shifting space reptiles. I apologize to David if I've lost a bit in translation. It has been many years since he and I shared a BBC talkshow sofa together, and our paths have diverged somewhat. Yet here we are yoked together in Canadian Human Rights litigation. (You can read more on Icke's views of Warman here.)

Look, if David Icke was a racist, he wouldn't find it prudent to give seven-hour speeches in Brixton. Icke isn't a racist, he's a kook who believes the world is run by shape-shifting space lizards. Why should it be illegal to advance that theory? Has the Queen or any other shape-shifter filed a Human Rights Commission complaint alleging that Icke has exposed her to "hatred or contempt"? No. I should imagine Her Majesty is laughing the socks off her sinister reptilian feet over it. Which is the healthy reaction. But not as far as Richard Warman's concerned. This is the standard this longtime Canadian government speech investigator sets:

What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?

Who died and made Lucy Warman Speech God? Er, well, the Canadian government did. And it's freedom of expression, in any meaningful sense, that's died. A longtime Canadian "human rights" officer thinks that it's the state's role to "allow" citizens to speak if they can demonstrate some "benefit" in doing so. With human rights like that, who needs lack of human rights?

In his way, Richard Warman is nuttier than David Icke. Icke has flown the coop. He's out there in Alpha Draconis having a ball. But Warman is still more or less in the real world, and the assumptions underpinning that rhetorical question to The Independent have metastasized dramatically, from neo-Nazi losers in basements to conspiracy-theorist gurus and now to Canada's leading news weekly. In such a world, how many of us will discover the state can find no "benefit" in "allowing" us to speak?