[ UPDATE 4: Kathy Shaidle writes:
UPDATE: Breathtaking work by Steyn and Levant.
If you missed it, you missed two amazing performances. The politicians were left looking totally idiotic. Especially the two frogs and the commie.
Let’s hope we can get it up on YouTube somehow…
Jay Currie comments here:
Just watched Ezra and Mark give chapter and verse on the prefidities of the CHRC. Some of the members of the Justice Committee knew this stuff, for some it was brand new.
Ez and Mark could not help but mention Richard Warman over and over. It would certainly be interesting if Warman were to be called by the Committee. Especially if one or two of the members of the Committee were really well briefed.
Meanwhile, Jesse Ferreras did an excellent job of live-blogging Steyn and Levant’s testimony. You can read his bitchin’ account of things here. I have to concur with his last sentiments: I was a tad disappointed by Kady O’Malley’s coverage of things. But oh well. Them’s the breaks, I guess. Free Dominion has also devoted a topic to the pundit pair’s testimony, here.
Oh – by the way, where’s the Fairness Fairy in all this? ]
[ UPDATE 3: It looks like an interesting discussion is brewing in the comments over at Macleans. ]
[ UPDATE 2 ( see below for no. 1 ): I’ll try my best to update things as they come in; I guess you could call it liveblogging. Assuming, of course, that you watched as well. If you haven’t – then too bad. You’ll have to catch it on CPAC reruns.
12:36 – Ezra looks healthy. Not quite so tired as when he was pimping Shakedown. Once again, you can watch this whole shindig here.
Warman’s not coming across so well.
12:46 – ah – the taxpayer argument. Less CHRC employees, less tax monies. That’s hitting below the belt, mate.
12:49- procedural arguments vs. constitutional arguments. Brian Murphy, my friend, procedural arguments are a part of the constitutional argument.
12:50 – Vice Chair Brian Murphy speaks in favor of hate-speech laws in the criminal code. I’m guessing he’s on the pro side, here?
12:53 – Levant makes a huge, steaming pile of Murphy’s arguments. Bravo, Ezra! Steyn follows up nicely.
*Giggle. Steyn said ‘breast’.
12:54 – Vice-chair Serge Menard.
Sigh…I don’t speak French. It’s almost enough to make me regret studying Latin instead of French.
1:00 – Re: likely to expose.
1:04 – Vice-chair Joe Comartin.
Oh hey – Kady O’Malley’s live-blogging the whole event. Look at what an actual professional can do.
1:10 – Joe Comartin: Mein Kampf was published, and Hitler rose to power. So? That’s like saying a man ate tapioca pudding and then he fell down. Can you conclusively prove that if one had not occurred the other would not have occurred as well? The publication of Mein Kampf certainly had something to do with Hitler’s rise to power, but that rise had much more to do with the failure of nearly every oppositional system in the face of his growing power than anything else.
Joe Comartin seems to be missing the point: Germany pre-WWII had very similar hate-speech laws in place.
1:20 – Ezra seems to be focusing an awful lot on winning over Serge Menard…
1:22 – Ujjal Dosanjh.
Ummm…. why are the vice-chairs asking questions about criminal code hate-speech provisions? Isn’t this about Section 13(1)?
Ah – Levant’s noticed that.
1:25 – Marc Lemay.
1:31 –Brent Rathgeber.
1:34 – Umm….I think Mark Steyn means Alberta. Stephen Boissoin – unless, of course, he’s talking about someone else. Oh well – Saskatchewan and Alberta are close enough.
1:37 – Mark makes a good point about the McComplaints system that is our current ordeal.
1:38 – Oh, ok. Steyn and Levant are done. Further committee hearings to come? Coolio. ]
Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn’s testimonies before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which will be given today, can be viewed online here, for those of us who aren’t in Ottawa. It won’t be for a few more hours, but I thought I’d get a jump on things…
[ UPDATE: From Scaramouche:
Mouthy “hate mongers” Steyn and Levant (which could be the name of a Vaudeville act–or a firm of Jewish accountants) will be telling a select committee in Ottawa today why state censorship is so bad for Canada. Jennifer Lynch, CHRC Commissar in Chief, has declined to appear in such uncouth company. She is slated to testify tomorrow.
In honour of the momentous occasion, I have penned three poems for and about the hyper-sensitive censor/drama queen. A limerick,
This aft, both Steyn and LevantWill be countering Sec. 13 cant.But the censorship queenWill nowhere be seen.She shall not appear–no she shan’t!
Commissar JenniferDeclines to appear onThe same bill as Steyn.Ezra Levant alsoGives her the vapours butOnce they’ve both gone she’ll beFeeling just fine.and a clerihew.Jennifer LynchWon’t give an ynch.Thinks censorship’s a panacea.
(Hey, it works for North Korea.)
Read it here. ]