… is so frickin’ large, it would make Al Gore green with envy. Did you know that the taxpayer’s of Canada pay all of his travel and accommodation expenses for him to travel from his home in Manitoba to Ottawa, on a weekly basis, so that he can “conduct regular business at Commission headquarters? Uh?

On the bright side I’m told by reliable sources that Cuban hospitals are world class.

(click the cartoon for story)

It’s time for the Infidel Blogger Awards, recognizing “the very best in Non-“Canadian Human Rights Commission” approved blogging & punditry and of course further our goal of offending the Kommissars of the Human Rights Kult and their politically correct enablers in the MSM, Judiciary, NGO community & Government.”

“Look who took time off work!” and more – just keep scrolling. My God, that man must type fast.
For a summarized version, see Miss Marprelate’s event blog.
Youtube videos of Lynch and other testimony, courtesy Mississauga Matt.
Drop any related links or reports you may have in the comments.

Rules include;

“no CHRC employee ever posted a hate message” sip + plus wipe your screen

Blazing Cat Fur.

What do we have to look forward to? Jennifer Lynch of the CHRC, Mark Freiman and Bernie Farber of the CJC will present their justifications for the continued circumvention and erosion of Canadians fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and established criminal justice principles, notably due process. Richard Moon will hopefully expand on his expressed distaste for the “tone” of the public debate, otherwise known as democracy.
So expect the worst from them and even less of the Liberal and NDP committee members, after all Section 13 (1) was cynically born of the brokerage politics that hides behind the decayed mask of official multiculturalism and the need by politicians to be seen as “taking action” – otherwise known as vote buying. Section 13 (1) is legislation that brings visions of votes dancing through the heads of short sighted politicians giddy with the belief that minorities are homogeneous voting blocs. This will likely remain the case for our out of touch politicos who imagine advocacy groups are always representative of their alleged constituencies best interests and despite the fact that the campaign to rid Canada of Section 13 (1) has proven to be as non-partisan and grassroots an effort as any I have witnessed, garnering overwhelming public and institutional support.

You can watch the live broadcast here, 3:30 – 5:30 eastern.

Here, courtesy of Mississauga Matt, are the videos of Mark Steyn
and Ezra Levant testifying in front of the Standing Committee on
Justice & Human Rights, in Ottawa, on 2009-10-05. Thanks, Matt.

Update: Quotes from parts of the testimony of Mr. Steyn:

• I whole heartedly support laws against the incitement
  of violence, but what the human rights regime is doing
  is now criminalizing differences of opinion.
• […] not just bad in theory, but wholly corrupt in practice.
• Truth should be the ultimate defense.

This YouTube footage is good news, folks. Tell others about it.

“I fail to understand how secular powers and government agencies should think they are in a position to tell the church that she is wrong in her internal rules and regulations, even though these have directed and shaped the life of the church during the last 2,000 years. However, this is what we face today. If the Human Rights Tribunal should choose to interfere with the church’s governance, this will be most shocking. The tribunal has no authority to place itself as an arbiter of canonical precepts.”

Unless they decide they do.

Heh.

News to me. Quick, Dawg, grab your gun and join me in fighting them today. You and I will fight the Nazi menace the only way that works: through physical force. In 48 hours, I can get a dozen people with guns, who each know another dozen people with guns, who will happily do an Inglorious Basterds on their asses.
I’m (deadly) serious.
Are you…?
Oh wait: you don’t believe in private gun ownership, which leaves you pretty dickless in this fight.
Unless there’s no need to have such a fight.
Because you and I both know you’re just talking smack about “Nazis all over Canada.”
You can’t have it both ways. If they’re real, let’s get ‘em. They’ve got to be destroyed. I’m ready. Call me. I’m in the phone book.
But they aren’t real. This fake Nazi menace is as real as those “mass graves” you keep looking for, and “fire doesn’t melt steel”, and Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t a communist, and that “DDT kills babies” shit and all the other self-aggrandizing BS you people have been foisting on us for the last century.
You’re just a moral exhibitionist with way too much time on his hands.
All that said: the minute you get in HRC shit, I, like Jay, will be there to help you out too.
Gee, we seem to be doing all the heavy lifting on our side, huh?

The Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion has now been confirmed for October 27 and 28 in the Congressional Auditorium in Washington DC – click here for detailed registration procedures.

Score one for Marc Lemire;

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
[…]
Mr. Hadjis’ decision to reject the law as unconstitutional, in light of its penalty provisions, leaves a central area Canada’s human rights in limbo, and kicks a political hot potato over to the government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can appeal the ruling to Federal Court.
Mr. Warman’s case was supported by the CHRC, and various advocacy groups joined the case as intervenors in support of Section 13.
Mr. Hadjis rejected Mr. Warman’s complaints in all but one instance, an article called AIDS Secrets. He found that this posting contravened Section 13(1). But he also found the law itself — with its threat of penalties such as an order to cease the discrimatory messages, or pay fines up to $10,000 — violates Mr. Lemire’s Charter right to freedom of expression, and therefore refused to make any order against him.
“Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him,” Mr. Hadjis wrote.

Looks like Kinsella picked a bad to day to quit apoplexy…
Ruling here.

In a move certain to receive widespread support from Canadian Liberals…

The legislation, aimed at providing judges with clear direction on the 1937 Constitution’s blasphemy prohibition, imposes a fine of up to 25,000 euros — about $39,000 — for anyone who “publishes or utters matter that is [intentionally meant to be] grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”
Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use “reasonable force” to obtain incriminating evidence.

Fatwa #18195 from Yale University

Publishing

Permission To Publish

If we publish the Danish cartoons (not saying we want to, the question being purely hypothetical) in a book titled “The Cartoons That Shook the World”, will you promise not to firebomb our university press office?

h/t Uncle Meat

And all she got was this lousy t shirt.

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”*

The new law would punish the owners of radio stations, television channels and newspapers that have attempted to “cause panic” and “disturb social peace,” Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.
It also would punish media owners who “manipulate the news with the purpose of transmitting a false perception of the facts.”
“Freedom of expression must be limited,” Ortega said.

He won’t lose the next vote to proclaim him dictator for life.

If an individual must surrender their religious freedom when acting on “behalf of government”…

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission agrees with that decision saying the commissioners are appointed to perform civil marriages and when they are acting on behalf of the government have an obligation to carry out that duty.

Why aren’t they paying his legal costs?

Ezra Levant;

They’ve drawn up a blacklist, just like the medieval index of banned books. Right now it’s a voluntary pilot project to which Internet service providers can submit. But if the trial run is deemed a success and made law, anyone who links to a blacklisted site can be fined $11,000 a day. That means it will be a crime not just to provide the contents of a web site, but to merely reproduce its address.
That’s not just like banning books. It’s like banning books, and banning saying the banned book’s title. It’s a lot of banning.
But here’s the tricky part: the government won’t even say what those 1,370 banned web sites are. It’s secret. So there are 1,370 web sites out there that could result in your criminal prosecution in Australia. But you won’t find out what they are — until you link to one of them. That’s right out of Alice in Wonderland. The pretzelian logic goes like this: if the Australian government were to list those 1,370 banned web sites, then not only would they be breaking the rules themselves, but that list would serve as an advertisement. Out of the billions of web pages on the Internet, 1,370 would be given special attention, inviting anyone curious to check them out.
Of course, people who compile the secret blacklist know what’s on it. But apparently they can be trusted not to succumb to the temptation to look at the sites. And the list was sent to selected Australian Internet companies for a trial run. That didn’t work out quite as well. The list was leaked to Wikileaks, the web site that specializes in publishing confidential documents, especially embarrassing internal government memoranda.
And that’s when things got even weirder. Wikileaks published the entire blacklist on one of its pages. So now that Wikileaks page, too, has been added to the blacklist. It’s number 1,371.

Queen For A Day.
(h/t)