SteynOnline

A quick round-up of developments:

1) The Canadian "Human Rights" Commission has decided to appeal the Lemire decision. Naturally, the censor's best friend is on board.

2) Barry Cooper has just published a lively report on Canada's Schauprozess - ie, show trials.

3) The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering Section 13 on Monday afternoon, October 5th. More on this to come.

The information's free, but there is a small processing fee.

After the Chief Commissar of the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, Jennifer Lynch, QC (Queen Censor), revealed the existence of a Nixonian enemies list earlier this year, Terry O'Neill of The National Post filed a Freedom of Information request to find out what the Commission had been saying about him. This is supposedly his "right" under Canadian law. Unfortunately, like so many other Canadian "rights", the Government can be somewhat stingy in the quantities you're permitted. Heather Throop, "Director General, Corporate Management Branch" of the CHRC, eventually wrote back to Mr O'Neill:

Alas, Ms. Throop informed me in a three-page missive that any further digging by the CHRC to fulfill my request would entail email searches, electronic records management system searches, typing and reading involving up to 100 employees and 6,284 hours of government time at $10 per hour, hence the $62,840 figure, of which I was requested to immediately send half (or $31,420) to Ottawa to enable my request to proceed.

I'm afraid the CHRC is a corrupt and diseased institution that's now all but unreformable. Its basic practices, its conflicts of interest and its peculiar vendettas cannot withstand scrutiny, so it obstructs that scrutiny in every way it can. Ezra is right: Fire. Them. All.

More from Scaramouche and Kathy Shaidle, who adds:

Maybe we should just call it "-dom." The word "free" has been redacted -- for your own good!

The meltdown at the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission racket continues:

CHRC Investigates Richard Warman For Hate Speech

Got that? The plaintiff on every Section 13 "hate speech" complaint since 2002 is now the subject of a "hate speech" complaint. The former CHRC investigator is being investigated by the CHRC. Canada's most famous Internet Nazi's self-aggrandizing campaign of "maximum disruption" is now being maximally disrupted.

I would be interested to know the official position of Bernie Farber's Canadian Jewish Congress on this matter. The CJC gave Warman a prestigious human rights award only a couple of years back. Do they support this prosecution of one of their own as they've supported all the others?

For the record, I think this case is as illegitimate as the CHRC's Section 13 case against Marc Lemire and all the others. We should hoot and jeer at Warman, and expose him as a psychologically damaged Nazi website creep whose attack on Senator Anne Cools was utterly despicable. We should squash his nuisance law suits: this man has no "reputation" to be "damaged". We should make it clear to CJC members that Jews should be ashamed of being associated with such a figure.

But this Section 13 complaint is as much an affront to a free society as all the others. So, in that respect, Free The Racist Homophobic Misogynist Neo-Nazi One!  

My Maclean's column on the Marc Lemire decision prompted, among many others, this comment:

I find myself agreeing with Mr. Steyn's standpoint on this issue. The related tenets of free speech and of rule of law are - in my view - important to preserve. (Before the pitchforks come out, I must note that free speech does have its reasonable limits - no one should be yelling "Fire!" in a crowed theatre). However, I find it difficult to align myself with the caustic tone taken to the issue. It does no one any good to muddy a perfectly reasonable debate with polarizing hyperbole (dressing up as Nazis is rarely kinky by the way). It does, however, sell papers (or magazines, or website advertisement). As such, let us all try to refrain from petulant name-calling and focus on the issues at hand. 

Oh, bugger off, you useless tosser. And I mean that most non-petulantly. Here's why:

First, dredging out the old fire-in-a-crowded-theatre routine is not, as you suppose, a sign of the sophisticated nuanced thoughtfulness you bring to the debate, but a plonking cliche serving only to advertise in neon that you haven't thought about it at all .

As to not "muddying" a "reasonable" debate with "polarizing hyperbole", why do you think Judge Hadjis caved and issued a ruling in the Lemire case entirely at odds with the one he issued in the Beaumont case? Precisely because Ezra Levant and I and a few others clobbered Canada's "human rights" regime with "polarizing hyperbole". If we hadn't done, Section 13 would still be a goer, and Mr Lemire would have been convicted. It's only because we went Magna Carta on Jennifer Lynch's medieval ass that we succeeded in dragging received opinion, inch by painful inch, away from this racket. Being "reasonable" about an abomination only makes it respectable - as Section 13 was until two years ago. Left to the likes of all the "reasonable" types, Canadian liberty would drift incrementally but remorselessly off the cliff.

[UPDATE: As for kinky Nazis, Kathy Shaidle is your go-to gal.]