Duffy asked him if it was part of the same bullying that Mark Steyn and I face through human rights commissions.

Amb. Baker's answer: "Absolutely. It's very worrying". That comment is at about 4:30 into the clip.

As Jonathan Kay pointed out today, the "official Jews" at the Canadian Jewish Congress are out of touch with many, if not most, real Canadian Jews. Now we know the CJC's censors are out of synch with the values of Israel itself.

The most interesting part of Kay's report, is near the end:

To my surprise, members of the CJC delegation acknowledged that the folks who staff these commissions are sometimes lacking in competence, and thus — as I have argued — give the adjudication of human rights a bad odour in some instances. (I won't name names here, because the CJC clearly sees these commissions as allies, and I don't want to embarrass anyone.)

...One of the visitors — who shall remain unnamed — went further, suggesting that some human-rights commissions had become dumping grounds for political hacks without the skills to make it in truly merit-based jobs. He had the air of a man whose dream was being stifled by bad execution.

Good lord. The CJC said this to reporters? I'm surprised that Kay, a reader's editor, a newsman's newsman, hasn't outed the CJC staffer who said such things. Was it an off-the-record meeting?

I'm guessing it was the CJC's anti-hate tub-thumper, Bernie Farber. Sylvain Abitbol, an exquisitely elegant Sephardic Jew, is far too dignified to engage in that sort of trash talk. And I'm guessing that, as a lawyer, Mark Freiman had more self-control.

By the process of elimination, I'm guessing it's Farber. I don't think there's too many other people in the Jewish community about whom it could be said that human rights commissions form the substance of their "dreams". (If it wasn't Farber, I'd be happy to print a correction with the name of the CJC rep who did make this stunning statement).

If I was one of the HRC staff on Farber's speed dial, I'd be wondering "is he talking about me? Why won't he say that to my face? If he has a problem with our HRC's competence, why is he bitching to the Post, our sworn enemy?"

I wonder how that admission will affect the CJC's case before the Canadian Human Rights Commission right now. The CJC is an intervenor. If they're conceding that the CHRC is incompetent, isn't that legally relevant? Has that incompetence affected their investigation and prosecution of the CJC's own case? (It obviously has, but it's amazing to hear it from the CJC.)

And what about that second insult -- that HRCs have becoming "dumping grounds for political hacks without the skills to make it in truly merit-based jobs". That's astounding.

Well, let's make a list of such "political hacks", to see who Farber could have been talking about. The biggest name, of course, is Barbara Hall, the boss of the Ontario HRC, who was defeated as Toronto's mayor. The shoe fits her. But Farber didn't just say "political hack", he said "political hacks" -- plural. Who else does he mean?

I don't think Farber has as much experience with other provinces' HRCs -- he prefers the CHRC because of their national reach, and their censorship of the Internet. So who over there could be one of Farber's unemployable political hacks? 

Did he mean Giacomo Vigna, who ran a failed campaign for public office? Or did he mean one of the official commissioners of the CHRC?

I don't know. If I was Hall, Vigna, or anyone else who might be properly called a political hack, I'd send Farber an e-mail to make sure he wasn't talking about me.

UPDATE: I'm reminded by someone who was at the meeting that there were several more people in attendance than those named by Kay. Fair enough: like I say, if it wasn't Farber, he can e-mail me the name of the person who said it, and I'll edit this post accordingly. But the shocking words were said, whether by Farber or one of his minions. Those words -- stunning, damaging, but honest! -- were the official view of the CJC. And even if Farber didn't say it -- and he hasn't challenged my deductions yet -- then he tacitly approved it by letting the statement stand. There really is no escape clause here, is there? 

UPDATE 2: In the comments (click above) Jonathan Kay himself provides more information about who said what. If the defamer of HRCs wasn't Farber -- though Kay doesn't say that -- the fact remains it was a member of the CJC's senior leadership delegation to the editorial board meeting. It was a slur against the HRCs -- again, a slur I agree with, for it's so abundantly clear that Canada's HRCs are incompetent, and staffed by political hacks -- and it wasn't rebutted or disowned by anyone else in the meeting. In a way, it's even more powerful not knowing, with 100% certainty, which CJC leader it was. The cloud hangs over all of them -- and appropriately so, given that none of them disowned the comments. It's always slightly uncomfortable watching a lovers' quarrel played out in public, but when it comes to this CHRC/CJC fight, I hope it gets noisier and ruder.  

The cartoon, published April 18 in the Chronicle Herald newspaper, depicts a woman in a burka holding a sign that reads, "I want millions," and she says, "I can put it towards my husband's next training camp."

The cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon is a reference to Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman from Nova Scotia whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid. Qayyum Abdul Jamal was released from jail after charges against him were stayed on April 15...

The Chronicle Herald hasn't just been taken to the NSHRC -- you'll recall that nut house from this previous post -- but they've actually been contacted by real police, too.

Leger said he first heard of the Islamic group's concerns when the newspaper was contacted by police.

I'm sure the Chronicle Herald will have a lot to say on this matter themselves -- they've been one of the newspapers leading the charge against the "thought crimes" provisions of human rights acts. Here are my first-blush reactions.

1. This was a cartoon that commented on a particular Muslim radical, who had issued particular political demands ("millions of dollars"). This is just the latest example of radical Islam attempting to criminalize criticism as "religious discrimination". The Chronicle Herald was clearly engaging in political commentary. Radical Islamists, and their useful idiots in Canada's human rights commissions, will do anything to silence their political critics.
2. It's embarrassing enough that rogue human rights commissions are taking on such clearly legitimate expressions of political opinion. But what is the excuse for real police calling the newspaper? When Calgary's resident jihadist, Syed Soharwardy, tried to get the police to arrest me for opposing radical Islam, they politely refused. They didn't even contact me -- they knew a nuisance complaint when they saw one. Why are Halifax police allowing their good offices to be abused? Don't they know the inappropriate chilling effect that will have on the media? Or is that their point?
3. Look at the identity of the official complainant here. It's not Mrs. Jamal, the money-grubbing wife of the accused terrorist. It's Ziaullah Khan, of Halifax's "Centre for Islamic Development". Here's Khan's angry rant about the honour killing of Aqsa Parvez, whose father killed her for, amongst other sins, not wearing a hijab. Khan doesn't focus his fury on Parvez's father, but on the "hatemongers" in the media for covering the horrible story. I'm surprised he didn't file a human rights commission back then.
4. Why is it that Khan, whose job description is the promotion of Islam in Halifax, has allied himself with the Jamals? It's because, regrettably, too many imams in too many mosques in North America are radical themselves, and even if they don't preach terrorism, they excuse it, or in this case, sympathize with the accused terrorist. If only the Khan's of this world were as eager and angry to speak out against Muslim terrorism, instead of media coverage, or Canadian counter-terrorism efforts.
5. But why has Mrs. Jamal herself not yet filed a defamation suit against the newspaper? Khan called the cartoon "libellous". If so, Mrs. Jamal could sue. But then she'd have to pay for her own lawyers -- not have the clowns at the human rights commission pay for them. And the Chronicle Herald would have centuries-old common law defences, such as truth and fair comment. Moreover, they'd be able to cross-examine Mrs. Jamal at length, not only about her demands for "millions of dollars", but about her knowledge of her husband's activities. No, better to stick with kangaroo courts and made-up "human rights", than to go to real courts.
6. Is it a coincidence that the Chronicle Herald, one of Canada's smartest critics of HRCs, has been targetted by one? Maybe. Or maybe their CEO, the mawkish Michael Noonan, is still smarting over the paper's amazing smackdown of him, and thought he'd mete out a little kangaroo court justice.
7. I hate the fact that the Chronicle Herald will now have to spend thousands of dollars fighting against this unholy alliance between fascist Islamist censors and weepy politically correct HRC bureaucrats. But, other than that unfortunate side-effect, I'm actually glad for this, in a dark, "the worse, the better" kind of way. The more people hear about these abusive HRCs, the more they realize the threat to our freedoms they have become, the more they realize that everyone is vulnerable -- not just conservatives like me and Mark Steyn, but anyone who dares to have an opinion -- the more there will be a demand for reform or abolition of these commissions. As with the offensive Barbara Hall of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I hope that Khan's repugnant voice is heard again and again and again, for he discredits his cause more than any of his critics could.

UPDATE, via Robert: Here's some background on the lovely Mrs. Jamal herself.

Two years ago, right after the Western Standard published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, I was invited by the Canadian Association of Journalists to debate against Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry's debating style was strange: he rambled from denouncing "zhoos" for controlling the media, to bragging about how Canada should be grateful to him since he is personally responsible for developing Research In Motion's BlackBerry. In other words, he's an egocentric conspiracy theorist with a big dose of Jew hatred. Here's a column I wrote about Elmasry shortly after that debate.

Once, I even debated Syed Soharwardy, the anti-Semitic imam who filed a human rights complaint against me for publishing the cartoons. Soharwardy was so upset by that debate that he went to the Calgary Police Service afterwards to try to get them to arrest me!

But for sheer cheekiness, one of my favourite debates was back in 2005 when I debated against Joe Volpe, then a federal cabinet minister.

We had just run a hilarious cover story called The Libranos, about how the corrupt federal Liberals were stealing money in the manner of a criminal organization. Here's the cover of that issue. 

I don't think the video clip is still available on CTV's website, but here are some contemporaneous reviews by viewers. But the point is: it didn't matter that I shellacked Volpe. Because merely by having him agree to debate me on live, national TV, I had won.

Imagine that: a senior government cabinet minister, deigning to debate a small magazine publisher about... the magazine. How could I lose? How could I not come across as bigger than I was, and him smaller than he was? By participating, he granted our little magazine much more credibility and authority than we had. Forget about the fact that he flashed his temper, and sounded ridiculous (I think he called me, a Jew, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or something like that.) Even if he would have "won" the debate ("no, we're not crooks like the Sopranos") he looked ridiculous.

I loved it!

Which brings me to the curious case of Warren Kinsella (who himself had a significant enough role in the Libranos drama to be mentioned many times by name in the Gomery report, and cited for "highly inappropriate" interference in how public funds were spent).

Over the past few days, Kinsella has been even more excitable and desperate than normal. He has been demanding that Mark Steyn debate him at a June 3rd event sponsored by the Public Policy Forum in Ottawa.

I can understand why: like me debating against Joe Volpe, Kinsella debating against Steyn would be a coup for Kinsella. Steyn is the big dog in Canadian media -- both through his column in Maclean's, but also on the blogosphere, where he has more traffic than any other political blogger in the country. (Kinsella ranks 21st, and is falling). Kinsella used to be interesting when he had access to the federal Liberal Party. That hasn't been the case since Jean Chretien left, and it has stripped Kinsella of his strongest suit. Kinsella is occasionally funny, but more usually over the top. His schtick worked when he was affiliated with the prime minister of the day, no matter how tenuously. That's just gone now. Of course Kinsella would like to debate Steyn. And I would like to debate Stephane Dion on national TV, too, but it's not going to happen.

Kinsella has taunted Steyn:

C'mon Mark! You're not afraid to debate little old me, are you?

and

we can safely regard Mark Steyn as a chickenshit.

and

Your hero shouldn't be afraid, then, right? The Public Policy Forum will sponsor it, next month in Ottawa. I'll agree to any format your hero desires.

The great man couldn't possibly be intimidated by someone committing career suicide, could he?

I look forward to his response. He certainly lurks on my site enough, so I know he's read my offer

and, my favourite:

Let's go, tough guy. 

It's all very compelling theatre, except for one thing: Kinsella was invited by the Public Policy Forum to debate me, and he refused, saying he'd debate anyone but me!

Last month, the PPF invited me to the debate, and I accepted. But then Kinsella backed down, claiming that his lawyer said he couldn't. According to the PPF's organizer:

Mr. Kinsella's lawyer... weighed in with a list of people and issues where there were potential problems.

You're damned right I'd be a potential problem -- I'd cream Kinsella in a debate!

There are no lawsuits between Kinsella and me -- though he's blustered and bluffed enough, you'd think that he'd have filed one by now.

He's not suing me, and I'm not suing him. Unless Kinsella was planning to defame me, there's no "potential problem" -- and even then, I'm sure I'd let him go, because his rage-aholic rants discredit himself more than anyone else.

So why does Kinsella need a lawyer to tell him not to debate me? I don't think there's a legal reason. I think Kinsella is scared. As Kinsella would say, C'mon Warren! You're not afraid to debate little old me, are you?

The PPF isn't a for-profit group; frankly, they couldn't pay my regular speaking fee -- I told them whatever they could chip in was fine. But I thought it would be a great debate in front of thoughtful people. I'm in the centre of the human rights maelstrom and Kinsella, well, he's one of the only people who are willing to make the case for political censorship. Let's argue.

But, Kinsella backed out -- blaming his lawyer. (At least it's better than his excuse he offered for not following through on his lawsuit against me -- blaming his wife!)

I was a little bit surprised that the PPF didn't tell Kinsella to buzz off. Kinsella was very rude and low-class -- like demanding that the host of a party un-invite another guest, or Kinsella wouldn't attend. But I didn't want to make a fuss for the PPF, and a five-hour flight each way for me, for a one-hour debate that didn't pay, wasn't worth making a fuss over.

I hope the event is a success, though with Kinsella verbally vomiting over his potential debating partners, I'm not sure if the PPF will be able to find a debating opponent for him. If I were Keith Martin, I'd certainly not lower myself, Volpe-style, to debating with Kinsella.

I hope the PPF debate is a success, though I'm not sure if Kinsella is quite the draw he might have been four years ago when he actually had access in Ottawa.

I've got about four or five public events over the next two months about human rights commissions, from Vancouver to Toronto, and I'll be sure to publicize them in case anyone wants to attend. Some of them are just me speaking on my own, but at least one is going to be a debate against a senior human rights officer with serious credentials. I'll be sure to keep you posted.

I'll share the details of one of them now: Moses Znaimer's ideaCity conference, in Toronto this June. It's not inexpensive, but it's an amazing line-up of speakers from all walks of intellectual life. I'm honoured to be invited, and I don't think that, like Kinsella, I'll be hiding behind "my lawyer" when tough questions are thrown at me!

I had to click on Winston's photos to see what Steyn was wearing on his head: a bright orange "Infidel" ballcap. No word on whether that was a gift from the Canadian Islamic Congress sock puppets last night.

I wasn't there, and I've seen no other reports on the subject, so I'll simply quote Winston's report without comment (and I'll quote his Farsi, just to be exotic!):

He was interviewed by... Reisman and it was as if a moonbat is interviewing an intelligent person (Mark Steyn) and with really biased and one sided question. At one point, she told Mark what he would do if he was "President of Great Britain". Hahaha... I thought Britain has ceased being a constitutional monarchy. LOL... Or she called Bush administration as "Bush's regime" and in response to that Mark said that "Anti-Americanism is a mental illness these days" and the crowd exploded in laughter. Ms. Reisman was surprised why hundreds of people were clapping and whistling for Mark and not for her...

The interview lasted for an hour and the book signing went on for almost two hours. It was such an honor to meet with Mr. Steyn and tell him how I appreciated his emphasis on "Putting an end to the Iranian regime" in his book and advocating it here and there. Moreover, Mark Steyn talked about Iran in particular and said how a modernizing government like that of the Shah was overthrown by radical Islamists in 1979 and that's essentially the type of so-called reform that is now taking place around the world. He brought up the case of Malaysia where they're entertaining the idea of replacing a secular British style government with a Sharia based Islamist one...

I end this entry with what Mark wrote for me: "Let's win this in Canada and Iran."

UPDATE: Here is Wendy's take on the event.

This week another cabinet minister joins Kenney: Gary Lunn, the minister for natural resources. Here is a copy of Lunn's letter to a constituent on the subject. The most important lines are:

Last week, Faisal Joseph, a lawyer representing the Canadian Islamic Congress, offered to “settle” the two remaining human rights complaints against Maclean’s in return for our acceding to a slightly modified version of the demands made last year...

The time to discuss reasonable replies to Mr. Steyn’s piece was after the article was published and before the human rights actions were launched. For Maclean’s to agree to any “settlement” with quasi-judicial proceedings under way would be tantamount to an admission of wrongdoing on our part when we have done nothing but practise responsible journalism.

It would also be improper and damaging to the integrity of Maclean’s, and a troubling precedent in Canadian media, for us to agree to negotiate the content of our magazine in return for the withdrawal of quasi-judicial legal actions and relief from punitive costs of defending those actions.

Moreover, any settlement at this point would have to be approved by human rights authorities in Ottawa, and would thus involve an implicit acceptance on our part of the jurisdiction of human rights commissions to regulate the content of print media publications in Canada. That is an unacceptable precedent.

We believe that a sincere attempt to settle this matter would have involved a direct and timely approach to Maclean's rather than a press conference and public ultimatum eighteen months after the publication of Mr. Steyn’s piece. But rather than approaching this magazine for the purposes of conciliation, Mr. Joseph and his clients publicly impugned our journalists at a press conference, tactics sharply at odds with their stated goal of reaching an amicable resolution...

The intention was to engage Mr. Steyn about his views on Muslims... If only Muslims would use the avenues available in a free and democratic society to engage in civilized debate. -- December 8, 2007, Globe and Mail.

True to Canada's tradition of free speech, we decided to engage Mr. Steyn in a debate about his views... We agree, which is why we asked Maclean's for an opportunity to debate Mr. Steyn... This issue isn't about attacking journalists or stifling free expression. It's about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument. -- December 20, 2007, National Post

True to Canada's tradition of free speech, we decided to engage Steyn in a debate about his views... we asked Maclean's for an opportunity to debate Steyn... It's about ensuring that our media outlets provide a forum for open debate and argument. -- December 29, 2007, Calgary Herald

The complaint is based on the categorical refusal by Maclean's to allow Muslims to respond and participate in a debate which intimately affects them. Canadians benefit when all parties are brought together, represented at the same table on equal terms. Extremists, by contrast, capitalize on perceived distance between the group they supposedly represent and the rest of society, so that no true dialogue can take place. -- January 31, National Post

We wished to close the gap and initiate dialogue... Our complaint is based on the categorical refusal by Maclean's to allow Muslims to respond and play a part in a debate that affects them... We believe in the benefit of having all interested parties engage one another on equal terms. -- February 9, 2008, London Free Press

When dialogue stops, we risk re-visiting some of our most shameful mistakes... We believe in the benefit of having all interested parties engage one another on equal terms. -- February 9, 2008, Toronto Sun 

Et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Mark Steyn says yes to a debate:

...we've put in a request to let me go mano a mano with the Sock Puppets. Don't care how many there are: One, two, or all three. If Daniel Simard wants to come out of his hiding place, he's welcome to join in for a grand reunion of the original Sock Puppet Four. I'd much rather go mano a mano with the real complainant, Mohamed Elmasry, but his mano is stuck up the Sock Puppets so I guess it's unavailable.

We'll let you know whether Steve Paikin's gonna go for it. But, if they do, it'll be 8pm Eastern tomorrow night. -- SteynOnline.com 

The CIC's sock puppets cancel:

Their main reason is that this is not what they have initially agreed to and that they would not have the time  to prepare for such a debate. The other reason they offered is that  their complaint is with Macleans' magazine and not Mark Steyn personally.

Given this picture, I think we need to go back to our original plan of keeping the combatants apart. -- e-mail from TVO producer to Mark Steyn

Will TVO really let the sock puppets off the hook? I know Steve Paikin, the host, can handle the "combatants" -- he was the outstanding moderator of the last federal election's English language leader's debate. He can handle a few law students and an author.

We all know Steyn can handle it.

So why have the Canadian Islamic Congress's sock puppets declined? They need more time to prepare? They've been calling for this debate for four five months. I don't think it's that they need time to prepare. I think it's that they don't want a debate -- they never have. They've wanted to make Maclean's and Steyn submit to them and their Islamic supremacism that brooks no criticism. That's what going to the human rights commissions was about. That's what their Al Sharpton-style shake-down attempt last week was about.

These aren't liberals, interested in an exchange of ideas. These are bullies, interested in not only one-way multiculturalism, but a one-way "debate": they talk, and Canada obeys.

What a bunch of cowards.

I'm ashamed that I haven't bought mine yet. I'm going online to get one myself this very moment!

That's what the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and, to Frank Dimant's shame, the B'nai Brith say. In paragraph 4 of their joint brief, they claim they're "representatives of the Canadian Jewish community" and that Canadian Jews "rely heavily on anti hate-speech legislation, such as section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for their physical and psychological security."

I admit I've been caught flat-footed by this. I didn't know that I was supposed to be a caricature of a thin-skinned Jew, a neurotic Woody Allen stereotype, a perpetual victim. But that's not being fair to Allen -- he works through his "psychological insecurities" using self-deprecating comedy, as so many Jewish comedians do. Come to think of it, I imagine he'd be a foe of section 13, if he knew about it. If he were Canadian, he'd probably even be charged under it. If you don't realize that Allen has his tongue in his cheek, his movies' outlandish characters and stories could come across as anti-Semitic. (Zelig is my favourite.) Allen himself could be convicted of "likely" spreading "hatred" against Jews.

I'm not the only Jew who didn't get the groupthink memo from our so-called "representatives". It seems that Jonathan Kay, George Jonas, David Frum, Kevin Libin, Michael Ross and Karen Selick of the National Post (not to mention the Asper family), Edward Greenspon of the Globe and Mail, Charles Adler of Corus radio, Ellen Seligman of PEN Canada and Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association aren't fulfilling the official stereotype either. Neither are Noam Chomsky or cartoonist Art Spiegelman or blogger Pamela Geller, but they're not Canadian. I'm not sure if Paul Schneidereit of the Halifax Chronicle Herald is Jewish, and Mark Steyn, Michael Coren and Christopher Hitchens may have some Jewish ancestry but they say they're not members of the tribe, so maybe their anti-section 13 heresy is permitted.

Each of the aforementioned individuals has come out against section 13. But that's the problem: they're individuals. The Official Jews, the Professional Jews, the Jews Who Are Jews for a Living, say that we're all just one big blob of "Jews" who think as we're told to think by them.

And what about Heather Reisman, patron of one of Canada's biggest and most active synagogues, Toronto's Holy Blossom? This Wednesday she is hosting a book launch -- not a book burning -- for Steyn's paperback edition of America Alone. Apparently Reisman isn't aware that Steyn's book is a section 13 crime, denounced (without a trial) by the Ontario HRC's czarina, Barbara Hall, and is about to be subject to a trial in B.C. next month. The CJC's Bernie Farber has less than 72 hours to tell Reisman to start feeling psychologically insecure!

If Canada's Official Jews want to claim that they're "psychologically insecure", they can knock themselves out. It seemed to work for Giacomo "Serenity now!" Vigna. But perhaps they'd be so kind as to speak for themselves, not for the rest of us. Now I know how Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell must feel when they hear Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speaking "for Blacks".

There is one useful element to their psychobabble dressed up as a legal brief. It is proof, in their own writing, that section 13 is being abused in ways that were never contemplated -- let alone permitted -- by our Supreme Court when they last assessed section 13 in 1990. To protect Jewish "psychological security"? So that's all it takes to trump our fundamental freedom of speech, as enshrined in the Charter of Rights, Bill of Rights, and 800 years of common law?

If you're a Jew (or know of a Jew) who has spoken up against the thought crimes provisions of Canada's human rights laws and I've inadvertently left you off of this list, e-mail me, and I'll add you. And why not e-mail your "representatives" at the CJC, B'nai Brith and (weirdly, as if they're some sort of political body) the Simon Wiesenthal Center at the same time.

Tell them that we all know they need some sort of "crisis" to write about in their endless fundraising letters. But perhaps they might find some other, real, threats to Jewish security -- oh, say, a synagogue or school torching -- and leave the "psychological security" schtick to Woody Allen or Jerry Seinfeld.

ADDENDUM: It's not just that Jews are opposed to section 13. It's that anti-Semites are in favour of it -- and are using it as a weapon against us. Look at the character of the men who have recently been filing complaints under section 13 and its provincial analogs. Mohamed Elmasry, the terrorist-supporting president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, filed three complaints against Judeophile Mark Steyn; Syed Soharwardy, the infidel-hating president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a complaint against me (and, though he later dropped it, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities picked it up); and even Richard Warman, Canada's most prolific section 13 complainant, has admitted under oath that he went online, under a secret codename, and posted comments on white supremacist websites, signing off with Nazi shorthand for "heil Hitler".

Warman is now suing not only me, but the Zionist National Post and its editor Jonathan Kay, as well as four of Canada's most pro-Israel Gentile bloggers, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Connie and Mark Fournier. Section 13 doesn't give "the Jews" security. Section 13 is being used to silence "the Jews" and our righteous Gentile allies. If anything, it makes me "psychologically insecure" to know that section 13 is being supporting in my name even as Alberta's own version of section 13 is being used against me.

I know that the CJC is beyond redemption. And the Wiesenthal Center is really just a museum and a gift store. But I still hold out hope from the B'nai Brith. Does Frank Dimant even know what his organization is doing? 

My own human rights battle at the Alberta commission is under that province's version of section 13, which happens to be section 3 under the Alberta act. If the federal section 13 is struck down by the courts, the provincial law under which I'm charged (and others, like Rev. Stephen Boission have been convicted), would immediately be of dubious constitutionality, too.

You can see the CCF's application for intervenor status here.

The CCF's mandate isn't just anti-racism -- they have intervened for patients' rights, as well. But their founding case was taking up the cause of a Nisga'a Indian chief, James Robinson, also known by his Nisga'a name, Chief Mountain. More recently, the CCF intervened on behalf of Japanese Canadian fishermen who were being discriminated against on the basis of their race. In other words, the CCF's anti-racism credentials are impeccable.

I suspect that the CCF's intervention will be the first of several. I think it's likely that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or one of its affiliates, will join the constitutional challenge, too. And the Canadian Association of Journalists has expressed their willingness to intervene in my case and in Maclean's, too. I'm grateful for their offer of help -- but intervening in this direct constitutional challenge could be a way to defeat the legislation itself -- a more productive use of their legal resources than fighting individual cases under the legislation.

By the way, I think that a constitutional challenge to section 13 has a good chance of success. Eighteen years ago, section 13 was tested by the Supreme Court of Canada, and it survived by the barest of margins: four to three -- and one of the dissenting three judges, Beverley McLachlin, is now the Chief Justice. You can read the case here.

If section 13 was ruled constitutional in 1990, why would it fail now? Precisely because the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been unable to control its appetite. In 1990, the SCC let the law live because, said the court:

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity.  Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.

The CHRC's conduct has been more and more censorious since 1990; it has moved squarely into arbitrating what's "offensive", by their own proud admission. Even without the ascension of Justice McLachlin, the retirement of Justice L'Heureux Dube and the death of Justice Wilson, the CHRC's current conduct clearly exceeds the latitude granted by that 1990 judgment.

I'm proud of the CCF's intervention. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened in the 1990 case -- I'm sure they'll intervene again, now. Add in groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists and maybe even PEN Canada, and you've got a big tent coalition for liberty.

I'd like Canada's HRCs to have their wings clipped by Parliament. But maybe the Supreme Court of Canada will get there first!

More importantly, I recommend to you Libin's front page story in Saturday's Post about Kenney's speech, if you haven't read it yet. Some excerpts:

Jason Kenney, a Cabinet member and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, labelled "dangerous" the "illiberal tactics" employed by some activists in the name of tolerance.

"I think it's very important for those of us engaged in anti-racism efforts to ensure the tactics we use, the approaches that we take, are consistent with respect for the liberal values of the Charter of Rights, of the Canadian constitutional framework, of our democratic parliamentary institutions," Mr. Kenney told the crowd of about 100.

..."There is a large and growing debate about freedom of expression and the role of the human rights commission, and organizations that seek to use these commissions to deal with what they believe constitutes thoughts or opinions reflective of hatred or xenophobia," Mr. Kenney said. "I would also hope that we think long and hard about the central role, the foundational role, of such values as freedom of expression in our constitutional framework, and that we do not lightly undermine those constitutional values in our efforts to combat racism or hatred."

That's the toughest broadside yet aimed at Canada's human rights commissions. "Dangerous". "Illiberal". "Undermine those constitutional values". That's tough talk.

So far, it is still only talk -- but it shows a growing school of thought within the government: Canada's HRCs are out of control, and are paradoxically becoming a menace to real human rights, like freedom of speech.

That the cabinet minister in charge of domestic human rights and multiculturalism would call "anti-hate" activists on the carpet so publicly and pointedly is dramatic. In a way, it is as important as Keith Martin's private member's motion to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the thought crimes provision. Martin's motion is more precise. But, as a motion (as opposed to a bill), it is what lawyers might call obiter dicta -- a non-binding statement of opinion, not a change in the law. Martin's motion is a call for a Parliamentary rebuke of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Kenney didn't bother to wait for the vote!

(Have these two men even met on this subject yet? They ought to; at the very least, even if the Conservatives aren't yet willing to formally endorse Martin's motion, they should ensure that the motion actually makes it to a vote.)

The Post covered Kenney's main points well -- they were really the only news of the day. But there were a few things about the conference itself that, while not meriting the front page of a national newspaper, would surprise severely normal Canadians -- that is, the taxpayers who paid for the conference.

As Libin's article mentioned in passing, there was a question and answer session after Kenney's 45-minute speech. Not a single question was regarding his remarks about human rights commissions. Most of questions -- and both Libin and I were stunned by this -- were not really even questions, but hostile comments about the government's decision to boycott "Durban II". That's the upcoming sequel to the 2001 international "anti-racism" convention that descended into an orgy of anti-Jewish hatred that even the U.N.'s Mary Robinson, no friend of Israel or the Jews, called "horrible". I think at least three of the questions on Friday complained about Canada's decision not to attend.

Their questions to Kenney had a mild anti-Israel flavour -- two of the delegates on Friday actually complained about how much they have to hear about the Jewish Holocaust -- but it was nothing more than you'd see at a typical NDP convention these days. But then it hit me: they weren't bitching about Canada's decision not to go to Durban because they were anti-Zionist. They were grousing because the government's decision meant that their exciting, all-expenses-paid junkets to South Africa were cancelled, too.

If Canada sent a government delegation, Canada's "anti-racism" NGO's could go, too. If not, then not -- or at least not on the taxpayers' dime.

(By the way, can an NGO really be an NGO -- a non-governmental organization -- if it is organized, or paid for, by the government? Friday's conference wasn't for NGOs. It was for GONGOs -- government organized non-governmental organizations.)

The entire conference suddenly made sense to me.

Why had there been no heckles from the hard-left crowd when Kenney spoke?

Why had the foundation's directors and staff been so obsequious to Kenney?

Because they all depended on Kenney and his department for their grants and hand-outs. Did they really care about Kenney's ideological differences with them? Did they really care about his views on freedom of expression, or anything else for that matter? With a few exceptions, most of them didn't. They wanted to know why they couldn't go to their next junket, to have a week-long reunion at a five-star hotel in exotic South Africa with all of their other "anti-racism" friends from other countries.

Another question suddenly made sense: a woman of colour complaining to Kenney about how hard it was for minorities to get jobs in the federal government. (The answer, of course, is the public service's strict requirement for French-English bilingualism, especially at senior levels.) But she wasn't asking in the abstract. She was presenting herself -- and the rest of the room -- as candidates. 

This wasn't a conference, in the main, of civil servants with cushy public sector union jobs. These were "anti-racism" grantrepreneurs -- people who had to hustle, every year, to liberate $50,000 or $75,000 from this government agency or that one, to keep going. They were what economists call "rent-seekers" -- or what Ayn Rand called "moochers and looters". Civil servants would have booed Kenney, because they already have secure sinecures. But these people don't.

That wasn't just my hunch. It was made crystal clear to everyone in the room -- especially Kenney himself -- by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation poobah who thanked Kenney.

Des Doran, a Jamaican-Canadian member of the CRRF's board, started off his response to Kenney... with a racist joke about how Irishmen (like Kenney) are a bunch of drunks.

I'm not sure what Kenney should have done. It was the end of the conference, everyone was smiling, and this doddering old man thought he'd tell a racist joke. If it weren't at an "anti-racism" conference, I'd probably defend the joke -- it was almost funny; and Doran is clearly from a different era, when calling Irishmen drunks was acceptable. I'm just pretty sure that if someone had made a Black joke or a Muslim joke, he would have been hounded out of that meeting, board of directors or not, different generation or not. Ask Tom Lukiwski.

Kenney chose to laugh along with it, though the rest of the CRRF's directors looked like they were going to throw up. Not because they didn't think the joke was funny, but because the whole damn point of inviting Kenney to the speech was to hit him up for a bigger endowment. Didn't Doran know that?

Well, yes he did know that. Because -- in front of the whole convention -- after his joke, Doran flat-out asked for more cash. It was so awkward, so desperate, even I felt pity for the old fool.

Kenney gave the same response that he did to the Irish joke: a courtesy laugh.

Gentle reader, I went to this "anti-racism" conference to hear Kenney talk about human rights commissions. And that's what happened.

But what I saw as well was a permanent court of race-hustlers and beggars -- and even bigots. And all of them were living off the government teat.

I had no interactions with the CRRF's executive director, Ayman Al-Yassini, whose c.v. boasts what others would hide, namely that he was

visiting professor at the University of Riyadh (King Saud University) in Saudi Arabia. He published extensively on the relationship between religion and state in Islam, religion and development and religion and foreign policy.  

He was clearly the envy of the room -- an ethno-bureaucrat with a big budget, immune from Parliamentary accountability because it's already in his endowment fund. He wore the nicest suit in the room, nicer than Kenney's. I'm guessing Ermengildo Zegna.

But most of the crowd looked like they were more Moore's people, or even Tip-Top. Not because they lacked a fashion sense, but because there just ain't a hell of a lot of demand for anti-racism "consultants" in Ottawa these days. That's a lot of junkets, conferences -- and $2,000 suits -- gone missing from the "anti-racism" movement.

There are human rights zealots. And there are clock-punching bureaucrats. But on Friday, I met a different breed: a hundred low-budget racial "consultants" who care more about their perks than the anti-Semitism of a UN conference, who care more about getting money for their pet projects than about the minister's views, and who think nothing of anti-Irish bigotry because, well, that's acceptable racism to them.

I had never heard of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation until this week. I don't think most Canadians had, either. I can't think of a single reason why the Conservative government shouldn't pull the plug on them the first day of their majority government. I truly believe that race relations in Canada would be better without this horde of Jeremiah Wrights. And at least he gets his money from his churchgoers, not taxpayers.

ADDENDUM: There is one important anomaly to this group of rent-seekers that I would be remiss not to mention -- and mourn. I didn't find it on the CRRF's website; I heard about it in Kenney's speech. About half the CRRF's starting endowment came not from the government but from private donations from Japanese Canadians. I think their contribution was about $6 million, and it was made in memory of the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

Japanese Canadians who were interned had real rights violated -- property rights; freedom of association, equality before the law, due process and natural justice; and the golden thread of British jurisprudence: the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Those were real human rights -- not the fake human rights of today's HRCs, such as the "right not to be offended". I admire the fact that instead of demanding cash, those Japanese Canadian donors gave cash.

They must be so appalled at what has become of their money. Instead of funding an endowment to ensure that Canadians are never again pre-judged by their race, that Japanese Canadian money is doing the exact opposite: it is funding a retinue of hyper-racialized grievance-mongers, to whom everything is about race.

There was a single Japanese Canadian in the room, a representative of those original donors. I didn't speak with him, but I wonder what he thinks about bankrolling this travelling carnival of Al Sharptons in training. I have never seen a Japanese Canadian race huckster. I'm not saying they don't exist; I just think it's beneath the dignity of the Japanese Canadian culture to muster professional complainers. They're too busy doing real things in the heart of Canadian society, not constantly separating themselves.

I think the fact that tax dollars go to the CRRF and a dozen groups like it is a scandal. But I think it is downright heartbreaking that millions of Japanese Canadian dollars, donated to further racial harmony, are being used to exacerbate differences between the races, and to fund perpetual racial tension.

Japanese Canadians were picked on because they were not treated as Canadians, full stop. They were treated differently in law because of their race. Why, that's exactly what the CRRF is all about.

Frankly, it sounds a lot like what's happened to the Canadian Jewish Congress -- a group that was set up almost a century ago to integrate Jewish immigrants into society, and to recruit Jews into the Canadian armed forces, has turned into a grievance-mongering group that would be unrecognizable to its original founders. 

It was fun to see Steyn in Canadian surroundings -- he's done MDL before, via satellite -- and I was impressed with Duffy's thoughtful and well-briefed questions.

Duffy's most daring question was about Richard Warman, Canada's most litigious human rights complainant -- daring, given that Warman has such a penchant for defamation suits, of which I'm painfully aware.

Duffy and Steyn talked about Warman's complaints, and his five-figure, tax-free payments from the Canadian Human Rights Commission for succeeding in those complaints. Steyn called Warman's deal a "racket" and a "scandal". It was a great discussion, and it made for great TV.

I'll be interested to see if Warman sues Steyn, Duffy and CTV now, too. They've said no more than many of the people Warman has threatened, such as this student from McGill. On the other hand, does Warman really want to get the full and hostile attention of CTV and its affiliate, the Globe and Mail -- and their countless lawyers?

Like dozens of Canadians, I was deeply moved by the death of 500 ducks that made the mistake of lollygagging at Syncrude’s oil sands plant in Ft. McMurray. The National Post put the story on page one, and even the Prime Minister called the deaths a “terrible tragedy.”

I agree. I can’t believe that 500 ducks were wasted that way. Imagine all the lost foie gras (though optimistic scientists have said five of the ducks can be saved). And it’s not just a blow to fine dining. How many Turducken connoisseurs will now have to make do with turkey stuffed just with chicken? How many restaurants will go without their signature dish, Peking Duck – another devious scheme by the Dalai Lama to embarrass the Beijing Olympics?

Of course the news is anything but a tragedy for environmentalist groups – Heart-rending fundraising letters are being written right now. For them, the golden goose only becomes golden when it’s killed – even if it is a species that is as far from extinction as, say, the rat.

...If oil-thirsty America – and China and India –stop using oil sands oil because it’s duck-insensitive, they’re just going to buy their oil from somewhere else.

Somewhere like Saudi Arabia. Or Venezuela. Or Nigeria. Or Russia. Pretty much everywhere oil comes from is worse than Canada – even with our new reputation as duck murderers.

If Canada’s PR nightmare is the slogan: “Boycott Canadian oil: they kill ducks!” what would the alternative be?

Buy Saudi oil: because only 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were sponsored by us!

Or, buy Sudanese oil – we’re working towards a final solution to the Darfur problem!

How about, buy Mexican oil: Canadians can come for a week – stay for two years!

...Every barrel of oil steamed out of the sand in Ft. McMurray is one more barrel that doesn’t come from a misogynist, human rights-violating environmental basket case, usually a dictatorship, and often a sponsor of terrorism. The moral thing to do would be to pump as much oil as technologically possible from Ft. McMurray.

Save the ducks? Sure. But I’d rather liberate Saudi women, save Russian democracy, or stop Nigerian theft of foreign aid.

I'll be there, of course.

Not so that I can publicly commit my life to the CRRF's motto, which "...acknowledges [Canada's] racist past, recognizes the pervasiveness of racism today..."

Not so that I can wear an "I'm sorry" button, along with everyone else, as they do in this wonderful short story by Robert Ferrigno.

Not so that I can write down every pearl of wisdom from the CRRF's executive director, Ayman Al-Yassini, whose biography includes:

visiting professor at the University of Riyadh (King Saud University) in Saudi Arabia. He published extensively on the relationship between religion and state in Islam, religion and development and religion and foreign policy.

(Counterpoint: I admit one could actually learn a lot about racism and sexism teaching at an officially anti-Semitic, officially misogynist university in a fascist theocracy.)

Nope. I'll be there because I've been invited as a guest of honour by today's keynote speaker, the Hon. Jason Kenney, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, who has asked me to sit at the head table with him as he delivers his thoughts on multiculturalism and Canadian identity. To kill time until he talks, I think I'll bring along my signed copy of America Alone to read (and, as my friends know, I like to read aloud, or at least in a stage whisper, instead of keeping the goodness all to myself).

I haven't seen Jason's speech yet, but I'm guessing it might even have a few bon mots about human rights commissions. I'll report back.

And if I see Richard Warman or Dean Steacy there, I'll be sure to wave at them from the head table.