On a CIC speaker comparing Mark Steyn to a neo-Nazi:
On guest speaker Pearl Eliadis slamming the "poisonous" Blazing Cat Fur:
... Wahida Valiante, [CIC president] Elmasry's deputy ... was speaking at a conference of Canada's human rights commissions, paid for by tax dollars.
... the CIC, which currently has two live cases before Canadian HRCs The CIC is still suing Maclean's. It is a party before two HRCs. And yet the HRCs invited the CIC as their guest -- surely paying for her expenses, if not an honorarium.
In other words, they invited one side of the lawsuit. They didn't invite Maclean's or Mark Steyn.
It's the moral and legal equivalent of a judge in a criminal trial inviting the police and prosecutors over to his home for dinner while the trial is still going on.
Fire. Them. All.
1. It's a delight to know that the grassroots campaign for freedom of speech, started on the blogosphere, irritates the professional "human rights" industry so much. I take that as incredible encouragement to keep it up.
2. I'm enormously jealous of Blazing Cat Fur. Good heavens, what do I have to do to get notice by Eliadis? I've been charged with the hate crime of publishing cartoons. What has BCF, that whippersnapper, ever done?
3. Look at Eliadis's complaint against BCF, what Eliadis calls "poisonous" and "appalling": BCF called Eliadis's debate with the great Alan Borovoy at "cage match". Besides a troubling glimpse into the fragility of Eliadis's own self-esteem, it's an insight into just what these HRC workers consider to be "hateful". Because, really, what's the big difference between "hate speech" and speech that is "poisonous and appalling"?