HRC debate going mainstream

The ongoing battle for the right to free speech in Canada has finally leaked from the Blogosphere and is starting to enter the mainstream of consciousness through the MSM. Ezra Levant lists several stories in this post, and sees evidence of an organized counter offensive by HRC's to state their case in the media and defend their positions of power and privilege, which is an expected response.

Reading Levant's post and following the links reveals how far we have fallen in this Dominion of Canada; the senior HRC officers who speak for the HRC's have such weak and ineffectual arguments and apply the power of the State in such nonproductive ways that they are essentially conceding there is no actual purpose being served by them. At the same time they betray a colossal arrogance, presuming to override the laws of Canada at their whim and bypassing existing procedural and judicial process to do so and bristling with offence when their activities are exposed for inspection and questioning.

Once you read this, I would encourage readers to look at Ezra Levant's entire site for detailed descriptions of how the HRC operates as a Star Chamber; allowing blatant conflict of interest and collusion between "complainants" and "investigators", manipulating or creating "evidence" and so on. Mark Steyn, another Canadian author under attack by the HRC has a great deal to say on his site as well, as well as Connie and Mark Fournie.

You too can have a say, go to this site and look up you Member of Parliament. They need to hear from their constituents that HRC's have no purpose in a Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law, and should be disbanded. Get writing.

I will give Ezra the last word as to why we all need freedom of speech to protect us from the arbitrary power of the State:

I know a little bit about South Africa and the end of Apartheid. It happened because of the decision by the white minority to relinquish power. That decision came about because of a relatively free debate -- a debate in which "offensive" ideas, like the equality of all races, was permitted in the main. There was some censorship, of course -- and, of course, that censorship was used by the Apartheid government to muzzle its more rambunctious critics. And that's the point: weak and powerless people often have no other remedy besides free speech. It was the case with the suffragette movement in the 1920s, with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1980s.