SteynOnline

Every so often, amongst all the support Maclean's and I get around the world from the US to Australia, I'm reminded of how few Canadians yet appreciate what's going on in their own country. The gentleman below, Peter Staniek of Montreal, is a regular reader and correspondent of SteynOnline so presumably he's more up to speed on the "human rights" commissions than the average Quebecker. Yet he writes to berate me for my "negative" "inappropriate" comment on this column in The National Post:

Mark, I am generally on your side of this situation - and I believe so is the National Post - for you to negatively comment on this fellow's article is not appropriate.

After all, Zundel and characters of their ilk, who publicly advocate a racist propaganda ought not be allowed permission to do so - never mind freedom of expression.

The article clearly stated that all we would need to do is to train and ecucate the folks at the HRC to act in accordance with their mission - and hopefully chastise them for their inappropriate zealousness - but not to demonize the institution as whole, after all it is also there to protect your own freedom of expression.

Hmm. "Zundel and characters of their ilk." Well, now that's an interesting expression. Who decides who gets admitted to the ranks of "their ilk"? The Human Rights Commissions. Can they be "trained and educated" as you suggest? Right now they're rogue agencies running around the web as Nazi fantasists spreading more "hate" than they actually prosecute and illegally hacking into private citizens' Internet accounts. And all they're concerned to do is protect their racket and (if Barbara Hall gets her way) expand it.

As to the idea that they're protecting my own freedom of expression, it's distressing to see a regular reader get things so upside down. No. They're taking away my freedom of expression. Next month the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will issue a ruling that will make it, in effect, illegal for me to be published in Canada. In denying me my freedom, they are, of course, also denying you - yes, you, Peter Staniek of Montreal, PQ - your freedom: the freedom to make your own judgments as a free-born citizen about what you read. The loss of Steyn from Maclean's and any other print publication in Canada is no big deal in the scheme of things. And you are certainly free to go on the Internet and visit this website - at least until the CJC and its allies achieve the control over ISPs that they've been seeking, at which point you'll get an "access denied" screen when you try to click through to SteynOnline. With "protectors" like that, who needs the Chinese politburo?

But here's the thing. For you even to frame the issue as one of HRCs "protecting" your right to freedom of expression is a sign of how corroded civic discourse is in Canada. Your right to freedom of expression is not the gift of hack bureaucrats. You're a free citizen of one of the world's oldest settled democracies. Don't do yourself a disservice and reduce yourself to some stunted ward of the Trudeaupian nursery. Otherwise you'll end your days in a society transformed beyond recognition.

Win a few, lose a few: Sean Berry appears to be having better luck than I, and advises: "Keep talking."

Oh, and here's what I said that Mr Staniek found so "negative" and "inappropriate". It was - in full - this: "'Expert' defends status quo."

Oh, dear, it's so easy to be offensive in today's Canada. Perhaps I'm well out of it. 

Why does Richard Warman, a supposedly private citizen (albeit one greatly enriched by the decisions of the CHRT), receive his mail at the Canadian "Human Rights" Tribunal?

Also: Read the letter. The Government of Canada (a G7 and Nato member) is whining that Marc Lemire (not a member of either G7 or Nato last time I checked) has all the procedural and operational advantages.

As Ezra Levant observes, the behaviour of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission and their boss Attorney-General Rob ("Truth is no defence") Nicholson is now so insane that its very insanity is their best shot at persuading Canadians this can't possibly be going on. And then there's always fellows like this: "Expert" defends status quo. 

Lots of developments on the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission front today:

In the wake of the Mounties' criminal investigation into the CHRC's Nazi fantasists, Marc Lemire was contacted by CTV's national bureau and invited to be interviewed. That's quite an advance into the mainstream for a supposed "neo-Nazi". Mr Lemire was unable to make it, but the word is Ezra Levant may be interviewed.

Also today: The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association applied for "interested party" status in Mr Lemire's constitutional challenge. You'll recall that Athanasios Hadjis tossed out the Canadian Constitutional Foundation's similar application. It will be interesting to see if Judge Hadjis - less a Jade Warrior than a jaded warrior, fighting vainly the old ennui - will dismiss the BCCLA with his now familiar contempt. But, if he's really too bored even to feign the pretence of impartiality, perhaps he could bugger off and get a judge who can at least go through the motions, as it were. Now that he's joined the Jade Warriors perhaps Attorney-General Rob (Truth is no defence) Nicholson could personally preside.

Also today: The Public Policy Forum's Jennifer Lynch snoozefest on "Next Gen Human Rights" has been "postponed" till next spring - ie, cancelled due to lack of interest. 

Looks like Attorney-General Rob Nicholson may have picked the wrong week to sign up with Jennifer Lynch, QC and the Stormfront members of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have begun an investigation into possible criminal conduct by the CHRC. Ezra Levant has more. And here's some background from me on the "human rights" Stormfront boys' shenanigans that started the investigation. (Incidentally, the CHRC called up Maclean's and demanded apologies over this column, but none were forthcoming.)

Will these lively developments form part of the discussion at what reads like the world's dullest schedule for a seminar on Canada's "human rights" commissions? Don't hold your breath - not with panel topics like "Can HRCs be made more effective?" - ie, can we separate even further from the norms of Canada's legal inheritance?

In other news, Point de Bascule, the lively Quebec website, noticed a revealing line in Le Journal's story on the Quebec commission on "reasonable accommodation" (of minorities and whatnot):

L'idée d'un projet de conquête islamiste a peut-être quelques fondements en Europe, mais pas au Québec.

Or in English: "The idea of an Islamist project of conquest has perhaps some basis in Europe, but not in Quebec."

Put aside for a moment the complacency about whether what's happening in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc can never happen in Quebec. If that sentence appears in the official report, due out any moment, that will be amazing. No phrase as explicit as "Islamist project of conquest" appears in my Maclean's article, yet I will be convicted of "Islamophobia" and "hate" by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for promulgating a thesis formally accepted by the Government of Quebec's commission officially charged with looking into such matters. Maybe we should call Commissioner Bouchard as a witness.