Good God, the plaintiffs are quoting Martin Luther King Jr. in their summation. Well guess what? I have a dream, too. A dream that all you bastards go back to the 7th century where you belong. How’s that for a dream? No amount of multi-cult preaching from our secular gods in Canada can ever make up for the fact that you - as Muslims - are everything I believe you to be. Dangerous, conniving, thin-skinned, lying, and brainwashed by the hatred of your Death Cult. Go back to the mountain - we don’t want you here.

Porter: What preventive measures are you doing that’s going to curtail Bin Laden?

Joseph objects. “It’s these types of questions, assumptions, suppositions, that is exactly going to the complaint — that there’s some sort of collective consciousness among Muslims, that somehow it’s Dr. Habib’s job to stop Bin Laden.”

Isn’t it? I mean, if there is a collective Muslim consciousness to be offended en masse, shouldn’t there be one that also takes responsibility for the actions within the umma? Faisal Joseph is glad to bring for a complaint on behalf of “Muslims”, yet when that same idea of community is brought under scrutiny by Julian Porter, Joseph declares that Muslims are individuals, not a group.

So which is it?

If you are going to bleat on behalf of all Canadian Muslims, then you should also stand as responsible for their actions. So throw them in the clink with Omar Khadr.

This blog, like many Canadian news blogs, will be all human rights commission, all the time this week. Many of you may not know much about it. Others, like my lucky American readers, will be incredulous that we don’t have a First Amendment here.

I encourage all of you to stay and read this week’s coverage of Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. If these things continue to happen in so-called civilized Canada, it is only a matter of time before it happens elsewhere. It is already happening around Europe, whereBrigitte Bardot was just fined the equivalent of $25,000 for slurring Islam.

On American campuses, there are “free speech zones”, and anywhere else on campus your speech is restricted. You can’t wear or say what you want anymore. Debate is being stifled on both sides of our border. I urge you to stay here at Girl on the Right (and other Canadian blogs who are covering this) throughout this week, and educate yourselves about what is happening here. The more you know, the less likely you will be to allow this to creep into your own country. Arm yourself with this knowledge. And know this:

We did this to ourselves. We allowed this to happen. When these Commissions were going after neo-Nazis, we ignored the news. It was easy. After all, who cares if some skinhead gets his just desserts? Who wants to defend a Holocaust denier? But now it’s us. We are the ones being rounded up. We can’t expect sympathy from those Nazis and skinheads - some of them must be sneering at our ignorance right now. Yet even as members of the press, like the publishers at Maclean’s, are being hauled in front of the thought police, there are others now who are turning away from the news. Many bloggers and journos who have different views from those of Steyn, or Levant or any of us, are saying we are either barking at the wind, or they are actually cheering for the HRC’s. You know what? I’m ok with that. We did it. We cheered for the Ernst Zundel’s of Canada to be prosecuted. And now those who are ideologically opposed to Steyn and Levant are cheering for their demise. I suppose what goes around comes around, right?

And so it will go, and someday, ten or twenty years down the line, it could be one of them. There are many Thought Crimes - misogyny comes to mind immediately - that come from those opposed. How long before they are hauled before these Kangaroo Courts and tried for their views, their words? Asked to defend themselves for speaking their truth? It could be a blogger who refers to women as “cunts” or one who says “fuck the Jews”. It may be one of their rabid commenters who puts them in hot water. Or it could be an anti-Semitic journo from the Toronto Star. It could be Toronto City Councilor Adam Vaughn for calling Americans “gun toting Yanks”. And they will look back on the cases of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, and wonder why they didn’t speak up. Just as we are doing now, with Zundel.

I can only hope that when that day comes - and it will, if we lose our chance to make changes to the law - we on the right side are willing to set aside our differences and defend them as we did not do for others before us. And as our opponents are not doing for us. I hope, but I really doubt it will happen. We, too, will most likely sneer from the silent sidelines, watching those we dislike be brought under heel.

From the Nat Post:

Whenever I think of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, which has been frequently of late, Hamlet’s exclamation “O my prophetic soul” rings in my ear. I’m not talking about my soul, but The Bard’s. It’s hard to believe Shakespeare foresaw the adventures of Canada’s social engineers, but there it is. Looking far into the future is what visionaries do.

Remember how Hamlet and his former schoolmates, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were supposed to board a ship and deliver the letter of Hamlet’s uncle, King Claudius, to the King of England? Okay; think of the letter as the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977. Then think of Rosencrantz as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and of Guildenstern as the Canadian Jewish Congress.

While I was out today, the story of the RCMP investigation into the Human Rights Commission’s illegal use of a citizen’s wireless IP address broke. I was over at Kathy’s when the word came out about it being on CTV news, and she read her emails about it out loud to me.

This is a huge step forward in our fight to show the rest of Canada just how illegally the HRC’s operate. They have no codes of conduct, no oversight, and a seemingly limitless supply of arrogance that they are doing the right thing (by way of Trudeau’s work). Their policing of thought to build a utopia is social engineering that even Margaret Sanger would be appalled by. And their blatant disregard of this country’s other laws - real laws - are a worldwide embarrassment.

The victim of the CHRC’s illegal hacking, Nelly Hechme, told reporters that she was “completely shocked” by the CHRC’s conduct. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, who has jurisdiction over the CHRC, is now investigating the matter.

But not even the CHRC’s most passionate critics could have imagined that the Mounties would be investigating the CHRC.

According to this letter written two weeks ago by the Ottawa Police Service, a criminal complaint filed against the CHRC by Marc Lemire has now been referred to the RCMP’s Integrated Technological Crime Unit. Here is the key excerpt from that letter:

After a full consideration of all aspects of the matter, it is our opinion that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have discussed this matter with the RCMP and the matter has been assigned to Cpl Stephane Turgeon.

I expect that the RCMP will be in touch with you…

This investigation will blow the lid off the criminality at the CHRC, expose Richard Warman as a con artist who has made his living playing the “hurt feelings” lottery system and off the Commission’s payouts; and it most likely expose the infamous Ann Cools post that led the the lawsuit against Ezra, Kate, Kathy, Jonathan Kay and the Fourniers.

It has taken the work of bloggers, and of course Mark Steyn and his publisher Ken Whyte of Maclean’s Magazine, as well as the tireless Ezra Levant to push the HRC’s out of the shadows and into the light.

We sat silent when the HRC went after neo-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers who lived in relative obscurity, even though their hateful speech should have stood for itself, exposing those people as the idiots they are. But we will not sit silent while the supposed “Human Rights” Commissions threaten to shut down press freedom - including the freedom formerly allotted to bloggers such as myself - in our democratic nation.

Ezra digs up this interesting tidbit about the commission investigator that is in charge of the Steyn/Maclean’s case. Turns out she’s a disgraced cop. She wouldn’t know ethics from elbows, and yet she’s investigating a major publication on a human rights issue?

Sandra “Sandy” Kozak had an ongoing affair with a criminal. Not an ex-con — hell, everyone deserves a second chance — but a serial criminal who was under investigation and criminal charges while she was dating him. Perhaps love got the better of her — we’ve all heard the bizarre stories of women who are attracted to prisoners, and even marry them in jail-house ceremonies. Maybe Kozak was such a woman; but the ethical answer would be to choose a life of law enforcement, or a life of loyalty to a criminal. Because she couldn’t see the conflict between her duty to the public and her oath, and her personal loyalty to a criminal, she was charged with “discreditable conduct”, and eventually agreed to a plea bargain, whereby she agreed to leave the police in return for a severance package and the charge being dropped. She was blind to her own conduct, but the police force wasn’t. That’s called the rule of law. As the Citizen articles point out, someone drummed out of one police force that way wasn’t likely to be hired by any other police force, even if she had the politically important quality of being a woman. She was just too corrupted, and she wouldn’t even acknowledge it.

So of course the CHRC hired her. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of any commentary or analysis that is more damning than that naked fact: a discredited, defrocked cop, who couldn’t see that her personal relationship with a criminal was a conflict with her being a police officer, was hired by the CHRC. I bet the CHRC didn’t even see that as a negative — they probably thought of that kind of malleable morality was a plus: no nagging conscience to ask “are we sure this is ethical?” when planting evidence on websites, stealing Internet broadband, or corrupting the process of natural justice.

Ok Canada, enough now. Time to end these courts once and for all. We are a laughing stock.

Ezra does an in-depth review (with requisite snark) of the coverage of the Kangaroo Court hearing on Tuesday. He add a lawyerly dose of information, which is mind-boggling to the rest of us, but worth the read.

But why was Tuesday’s hearing limited to just one day?

Again, this matter has been grinding on for four years, more than a year of which was in the Tribunal. Richard Warman, the nominal complainant, was given four days for his examination in chief — that is, four days to make self-serving comments, with Vigna leading him along. Why the sudden impatience? Is it because, with the CHRC’s own conduct on trial, it’s just not as much fun as shooting white supremacist fish in a barrel?

It’s long, folks. Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, and take your bathroom break now.

Tomorrow is the big day - the day when the kangaroo court of the Human Rights Commission is forced to publicly identify and speak to its own crimes. Entrapment, provocation, abuse of the system…

Some people watch Ultimate Fighting. I will be watching this instead.

Blazing Cat Fur has some amusing predictions:

A guide dog will pee on someone’s leg - CHRC lawyers will explain that it’s raining.

Richard Warman will be late claiming CHRC staffers forgot to cc him on the e-mail. He will later deny under oath that he is Richard Warman stating that Space Lizards have taken over his body.

Canadian Jewish Congress representatives will object to the proceedings stating that the proper rules and procedures of Sharia courts are not being observed.

Now that Sharia law seems to be influencing what our “free” press can and can’t say about Islam, this is something future Ezra Levants and Mark Steyns can look forward to:

Afghan journalist sentenced to death

An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam, an official said.

The three-judge panel sentenced Sayad Parwez Kambaksh to death for distributing a paper that humiliated Islam

Don’t think it could happen in Canada?

What if I’d asked you twenty years ago whether you thought journalists in the country my grandfathers went to war for would ever have to sit in front of “human rights” interrogators? What would you have said then?

Mr. Levant Goes to the Kangaroo Court.

His statement at the interrogation of the Alberta “Human Rights” commission is stirring and succinct. On more than one occasion, Ezra has stood up for my right to say what I want, often coming under fire himself. And though I’m two thousand miles away, I am proud to stand for Ezra.

Give ‘em hell, man. Do not let them silence you. Your complainants, as Muslims, have the right to call for your death as a Jew. But when you point out their hatred, or even just shrug it off with ridicule, you are dragged before a kangaroo court for sensitivity hearings.

Canada’s slippery slope has turned into a raging mudslide.

04/24/06 “I can’t figure out why the homosexuals I ran into are on the side of the Muslims. After all, Muslims who practice Sharia law tend to advocate beheading homosexuals.”

03/09/06 “I defy Islamic censorship and speak about what I believe is the truth
about violent Islamism and its threat to religious liberty in Canada.”

“How many of us pay nothing but lip service to the Muslim threat here in Canada?”

“Probably everyone want to jail a Muslim.”

“I have to ask why we are importing them here?”

“Islamic fundamentalism and its threat to Canada’s religious and civil liberties.”

Fuck you, Human Rights Tribunal.

This blog stands with Connie Wilkins of Free Dominion. The Human Rights courts are a sham and a disgrace, and a blatant misuse of taxpayer money. Speak out (while you still can).

I am Spartacus.