Richard Moon testifies

Before I comment on Richard Moon's testimony, I note that Phillipe Dufresne of the Canadian Human Rights Commission -- famous for this embarrassing appearance on CTV -- didn't say a word. That's about right.

Moon started strong. He re-iterates what he was paid $52,500 to do last year: that section 13, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. If he were to stop right now, he'd be a hero. I get the feeling, he's soon going to degenerate into moonbat territory, as he did this weekend.

But he continues. And so far, so good: he talks about the costs foisted on the defendants by merely forcing them through a lengthy investigation.

But then Moon drifts into fiction. He says that complainants, too, bear huge burdens. Not true: Richard Warman, the complainant in all but two cases in the past decade, has had his expenses (and even a modest daily honorarium) paid for by the CHRC.

And then Moon indulges himself -- but mercifully briefly. He says that he and the CHRC are good faith debaters, but not me or Mark Steyn. We are "misleading or false". He ends with a whine about "unfair attacks" on the CHRC, but, to his credit, 90% of his remarks were on point. Well done.