It’s the Monday edition of the Lynch List:
First, Mark Steyn on the Whatcott decision, noting some interesting turnabout:
Under the Saskatchewan “Human Rights” Code, Mr Whatcott is undoubtedly guilty. But the judges twisted themselves into pretzels to insist otherwise. In an odd way, this may be more effective than getting the jelly-spined squishes of the political class or the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down these laws. Because it makes a public mockery of rule by pseudo-law, which is one of the great blights on the Dominion. To keep the statute but oblige jurists to twist themselves into pretzels to come up with a reason for not enforcing it imposes on them a modest version of the restraints they routinely impose on us.
Also noted by Down with Everybody.
Second, The Daily Rasp brings us the latest musings from Guy Earle, the comedian against whom a BCHRT complaint was launched. The Rasp:
Here we have a an involuntary recruit in to the human rights machinery, sucked into the vortex by self appointed ‘victims’ and the wheels of a fat socialist morally flexible bureaucracy. With plenty of taxpayer cash and a brain trust stocked full of ‘progressives’ this is a totalitarian wet dream. Shaping society, shaping outcomes and making up phony human rights as needed.
In addition, Walker Morrow continues to document the BCHRT complaint against comedian Guy Earle, in a countdown to the hearings scheduled from March 29 to April 2.
Third, Mark Mercer, at the Ottawa Citizen, notes a peculiar charge levied against a cross-burning perpetrator: public incitement to hatred:
It’s hard to imagine that whoever left the burning cross managed to incite hatred. The culprit expressed hatred, but he didn’t incite any. Those in our midst who already hate blacks or revile miscegenation need no incitement (sadly), and news of a burning cross isn’t going to turn anyone who was indifferent to skin colour into a racist. Should the police seek evidence that this crime changed people’s attitudes for the worse, they’d come up empty handed.
Also noted by BCF.
Finally, the silence from the Human Rights Commissions is deafening concerning this case – since it’s probably the first genuine incident of hate speech they’ve seen in their lives, and they’re shocked it didn’t come from a white Christian male…