Original Article here

In contrast to much of the other coverage, Don Butler's report in The Ottawa Citizen turns up a few interesting nuggets - and manages, unlike the CP story, to figure out in its first sentence what's really going on:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission wants to stay in the business of policing online hate speech.

In a report tabled in Parliament Thursday, the commission rejected a proposal to leave the task of reining in Internet hatemongers to the Criminal Code.

Blazing Cat Fur spots the opposing positions taken by Canada's two most prominent "official Jews" (in Ezra Levant's phrase) - Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Frank Dimant of B'nai Brith. Bernie thinks everything's ticketty boo and the CHRC window dressing is all that's needed, whereas Frank wants a "major overhaul". This emerging difference may be because B'nai Brith recently found itself plunged into "human rights" hell and the attendant expense at the hands of an anonymous complainant - very Eastern European. On the day the Supreme Islamic Council of Swift Current hauls Bernie's ass into court, maybe the CJC's position will start to evolve.

Mr Butler also managed to get a reaction from Professor Moon. I don't agree with the Prof on much - in his testimony at Queen's Park, he revealed himself to be just another shill for the state enforcers - but this is a striking passage:

The human rights tribunal hears very few Section 13 cases either, Moon pointed out. “In the absence of Richard Warman, there really is very little happening under Section 13. You take him away, you’ve got nothing.” 

Very true. So take him away, and then we can take Section 13 away. As I've been saying for a year and a half now, out of 30 million Canadians, why should Richard Warman be the only one to have his very own law? One can debate whether his obsessive pattern of personal score-settling on the taxpayer's dime is evidence of a sociopathic disorder or merely a lucrative shakedown racket, but either way it doesn't pass the smell test. By the way, Mr Butler mis-labels Mr Warman as an "Ottawa lawyer and anti-hate activist". He is, in fact, an "Ottawa lawyer and prominent author of multiple white-supremacist hate-speech Internet postings". Perhaps the Citizen could run a correction.

Oh, and you gotta love Jennifer Lynch, QC. Deborah Gyapong all but chokes on the hectoring post-modern utopian mumbo-jumbo as Queen Jennifer "reconceptualizes" human rights as a "matrix". Yeah, I saw that movie, and we're already way too far down the rabbit hole. Meanwhile, Her Majesty calls for "balance":

While the furore over Maclean's generated fierce debate, Lynch said the debate “has not yet been balanced.”

Well, why's that? It's because you and your gang got used to operating in the dark, living out your silly little secret-agent fantasies as Internet sock puppets, attempting to keep the press and public out of your kangaroo courtrooms, refusing even to show your faces when defendants paid routine calls to your offices. But, if at this late hour you really want to have a debate, why not propose a date? I'll be there, Maclean's can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some such to moderate...

But, if by a "balanced" debate, you mean that Canada's "human rights" apparatchiks should be allowed to scurry back under the rock we lifted up 18 months ago, that's not gonna happen.