Alright, here we go.
First off, some more coverage of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant’s testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, regarding Section 13(1), from Chrome Beach, Mondoville, Threedonia.com, Five Feet Of Fury ( may have posted this link already, but whatever ), Atlas Shrugs, Unambiguously Ambidextrous, No Apologies, Queer Planet, Solomania, Tundra Tabloids, Blazing Cat Fur, Scaramouche, Jay Currie, The Shotgun Blog, Small Dead Animals, BC Vote, Free Dominion ( with more here, here, and here ), Aloud In The Street, Rabble.ca, No Apologies, and, finally, from Ezra Levant himself, which I can’t believe I didn’t link to earlier. Here are his thoughts:
Today, Mark Steyn and I testified before Parliament’s Justice and Human Rights Committee, in support of their investigations into the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their discredited censorship powers.
Later this week I’ll share some of my views about how it went, including my assessment of the questions from the MPs. (In a word, I was quite encouraged.) In the meantime, here are YouTube videos of the whole hour, courtesy of SDA Matt. I’m curious how you thought it went: feel free to leave a comment not only about what Steyn and I said, but what the MPs said, too.
Mark and Ezra went to the Hill
With common sense in their chatter
In hopes J Ly would fall down
And lose her crown
And Section 13 would come tumbling after.
Read it here. Also, an interesting bit of statistical analysis from Five Feet Of Fury:
“Our” assigned PVR’r and YouTube-r reports on the stats from the Ezra Levant/ Mark Steyn (“Bad Cop, Worse Cop”) testimony that was posted yesterday:
Youtube provides some stats on who’s watching my videos – it’s hard to say how accurate it is, but it attempts to give an idea of where the viewers are.
The attached for the Steyn/Levant in Ottawa videos caught my eye: lots of viewers in Canada of course, pretty good exposure in the U.S. and Australia, the lightest of viewing in part of Scandinavia and in India, and then a strong showing in … Afghanistan!
I wonder if our troops are watching what’s going on back home?
Second, some more on Barbara Hall’s new approach to housing from No Apologies: Landlords in the crosshairs of the Ontario Human Rights Commission; meanwhile, more on this from All Headline News, and the Toronto Sun.
Third, the results of Jennifer Lynch’s Dublin whine tour are in. Jay Currie writes: The Coward Lynch goes to Dublin, while Blazing Cat Fur asks: Is Jennifer Lynch a tone deaf witless hack? Meanwhile, a last word to Mark Steyn, who writes: Poor Jenny:
Our title today comes from Kurt Weill and Ira Gershwin:
Bright as a penny!
Her equal would be hard to find…
These days it’s Jenny who’s hard to find. Chief Commissar Lynch of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission was unable to join Ezra and me for our testimony to the House of Commons Select Committee because, apparently, she had a prior engagement. In Geneva. Please, no tittering. No doubt it was an invaluable opportunity to exchange fraternal greetings with the Chief Commissar of the Sudanese Human Rights Commission.
At any rate, the nearest thing to a laugh during Monday’s proceedings came during an exchange about the CHRC’s stated determination to “abolish hate” – not “hate crime” or even “hate speech” but just plain old hate. I pointed out that hate is a human emotion and that it beats, to one degree or another, in every breast. And I suggested to the honourable members that I sometimes got the impression from her public remarks that even Jennifer Lynch harbours just a teensy-weensy itsy-bitsy soupçon of hatred for me and Ezra.
Speaking of which, Marc Lemire, the first man ever to be acquitted in a Section 13 prosecution, recently filed a Freedom of Information request regarding Jennifer Lynch, QC’s summer junket to Dublin, where Canada’s Queen Censor informed her audience yet again that she and her fellow censors were the real victims here – victims of “reverse chill” from out-of-control bloggers. Or, as I put it in Maclean’s, the Dominion of Canada has been reduced to complaining that Blazing Cat Fur is out to get it. The documents obtained by Mr Lemire are a revealing glimpse into the Queen Censor’s mindset. For example, this e-mail to the Canadian Bar Association:
I have wanted to follow up with you in any event about my remarks to be made to the Council in mid-August. My plan was to update the presentation I made to the board and to expand on our Special Report to Parliament now that it is out. As for updates, for example Mark Steyn has now posted on his blog, “Is Jennifer Lynch a drunken pedophile serial killer’ ? – and more of what I call ‘reverse chill’ is going on daily.
Actually, I wrote: “Is Jennifer Lynch, QC a drunken pedophile serial killer?” I’m always very respectful of her post-nominal. As to why I raised the question, see here. Blazing Cat Fur wonders, in response, “Is Jennifer Lynch a tone-deaf witless hack?” Could anything be more pitiful than the government’s Chief Censor whining about being criticized? In her speech in Dublin, Commissar Lynch complained:
Much of what was written was inaccurate, unfair, and at times scary:
Maclean’s magazine ran an article with the title: Kangaroo court is now in session, by Mark Steyn.
And yet Commissar Lynch doesn’t provide a single example of an “inaccuracy” in that column. She did, however, note:
Steyn describes human rights commissions and their employees in this way:
• “Gestapo of the …Canadian Human Rights Commission”
• “human rights racket”
• ” the whacky world of Canadian human rights.”
• ” (i)t sounds like a fetish club for servants of the Crown”
• “a secretive and decadent institution”
“Gestapo of the …Canadian Human Rights Commission.” Hmm. Wonder what’s in the ellipsis? Let’s go to the source:
As Mr. Baker sees it, before I became the metaphorical Nelson Mandela metaphorically tasered into metaphorical submission by the metaphorical Gestapo of the sadly non-metaphorical Canadian Human Rights Commission, I was an amusing fellow prancing gaily through the flotsam and jetsam of the culture…
Close enough for State Censorship work! Why, Jenny’s speeches are beginning to read like those letters home from the Gulag with two out of every three words blocked out. I take it all back. What we should be asking is: Is Jennifer Lynch, QC a drunken pedophile serial-killer ellipsis-junkie?
You begin to see why Commissar Lynch is so reluctant to face her critics across a House of Commons committee room.
Read it here.
Fourth, Scaramouche has found another song for the season:
How did the CHRC’s Nazi slayer manage to find so many Section 13 violators to complain about before his racket was finally exposed? Easy. He laid a trap for them by pretending to be a Nazi himself. It went down something like this:You see somebody sieging heil.He hangs around for quite a while.You think there’s nothing wrong,He strings along, boy,
And snap!That heil, that guile, they’re part of the Jen Lynch trap.You’re eye-to-eye-about the JewsAnd how they all control the news.You’re chatting ‘bout your goal, you say jawohl, pal, then zap!That goal, jawohl, is part of the Jen Lynch trap.Some fateful day, prob’ly not until much later.They’ll haul your butt to a “judge” because you’ve been a hater.And all at once six years have passed.The die against you has been cast.You’ll have your day in “court,” but, sport, it won’t be a snap.You wonder how it all came about.
Its too late now there’s no getting’ out.
You spoke some hate, and, mate, that’s the Jen Lynch trap.
Read it here.
Fifth, an update on intervenor status in the CHRC’s appeal of the Hadjis decision in Warman v. Lemire, from Blazing Cat Fur:
The BC Civil Liberties Association has indicated they will be seeking intervenor status at the upcoming judical review of Warman v. Lemire.
Pen Canada has indicated that while they fully support the abolition of Section 13 (1) they are not currently in a position to seek status as an intervenor.
Dear Mr. Lemire,
Thank you for your request.
PEN Canada has a clear and long-standing position on the unconstitutionality of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which can be found on our website, http://www.pencanada.ca
As an organization, we are not in a position to undertake interventions at this time.
Meanwhile keep those cards and letters flowing to all potential intervenors in this matter, let them know how important this is to the Canadian public.
Read it here.
Sixth, from Free Dominion: CHRC Abrams v Topham – Christie Throws a Strike:
fast ball, right over the plate
CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
PO Box 24052
4420 West Saanich Road
Victoria, BC V8Z 7E7
Telephone 250-590-2979 Fax 250-479-3294
October 6, 2009
Nancy LaFontant, Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4
Dear Ms. LaFontant:Re: Harry Abrams and The League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com
Complaint No. : 20071016
I would like to indicate, on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, that the decision of Member Hadjis in Lemire is morally binding and legally persuasive to the argument that the hearing against Mr. Topham should not proceed. This would be a waste of judicial time and contrary to fundamental justice. We are of the view, in light of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s seeking of judicial review, that the CHRC regards Member Hadjis’s decision as more than just affecting penalty clauses.
Our view is that this matter should be dealt with by a preliminary motion in order to avoid unnecessary waste of time and expense in the defence of the matter and the re-litigation of the constitutional question, which would be inevitably necessary, if this matter were to proceed.
It is unfair in the extreme, for government-funded entities like the Commission and well-funded organizations like B’nai Brith to put private individuals and small-organizations defending free speech to the expense of a full-blow hearing, when the constitutional validity of the enabling legislation is impugned by the Tribunal itself. The principle of stare decisis requires this matter be resolved by a higher authority, if there is any doubt, and there certainly seems to be doubt in the mind of the Commission, considering its decision to seek judicial review.
Our view is that this issue of whether to proceed or not needs a separate hearing as soon as possible. Would the Tribunal please accept this as a motion on our part, accepting the issue of constitutional validity directly: That a date be set for argument about constitutional validity and the existing hearing dates be abandoned.
Douglas H. Christie
Read it here.