Try your luck with this Skill Testing Question:

Since the Nazis imposed state censorship over speech they deemed offensive, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission imposes state censorship over speech they deem offensive, does this mean that those that use the CHRC to impose state censorship over speech they deem offensive are “Nazi sympathizers”?

Send in your answer and receive an entry in a draw for a free Canadian Human Rights Commission Reaction Figure!

*	A perfect choice for the unsympathetic Jew on your Holiday gifting list, designed and recommended by Danish cartoon censorship advocates everywhere.

Update – Ouch.

The rise of soggy-assed relativism has brought us to a point where putative spokespeople for parties and groups regularly insist on conflating, as if it’s a human right, completely different things. For example, the common-sense, obvious observation that it’s inappropriate for a journalist to collude with a political party to manipulate parliamentary proceedings which the reporter then reports on are regularly met with a sneering “Oh, so you’re saying that reporters shouldn’t ask questions…” and other such “arguments.” The lack of accountability to reason is betrayed by the apparent belief that reasonable interlocutors will be forced to say “touche”.
And now we’ve got Kinsella suggesting that someone who defends free speech is a hypocrite if he has ever taken legal action — and submitted the challenge to due process, not some kangaroo court — against the publication of false statements damaging to his reputation.
It’s apparent that Kinsella doesn’t know the difference between an argument and an assertion, or an argument and a cheapshot, and that he measures the cogency of whatever case he’s making by the amount of foam that builds up in the corner of his mouth when he’s making it.
Alas, it’s only other people who can see the foam, so he’s probably the only one who doesn’t understand that the National Post was doing him a favour when they wiped the spittle off their site.
“Some might say Ezra Levant is not fit to carry Richard Warman’s water bottle. I won’t.”
Well, as Me No Dhimmi pointed out, you did say it. And pretty much everyone says that Warren Kinsella is a craven, would-be tyrant who is prone to juvenile, self-destructive public meltdowns that he mistakes, remarkably and publicly, for personal victory and renown. In terms of convincingness, nothing Kinsella’s ever typed out in his life would come up to Ezra Levant’s proverbial ankles; is it even possible that Kinsella doesn’t understand that? You wouldn’t think so, and yet he goes and writes a piece like that. It’s like Joel Gray challenging Vladimir Klitchko to a fist fight. Go figure.