Time Immortal

After being branded as an anti-Semite and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, former Liberal Party of Canada candidate Lesley Hughes is back in the news (or rather: back on the blogs) in an attempt to deny the claims made against her.

The Canadian Jewish Congress seems to have assumed that I am one of those who subscribe to a bizarre conspiracy theory that the world’s Jews were responsible for 9-11, a ludicrous idea I have never supported. As a result of the Congress’s assumption, I have been slandered as an odious anti-Semite, a claim accepted by the prime minister, by the leader of the opposition, and the nation’s media. I have also been labelled an extremist nutbar who has promoted, rather than investigated, the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job.

It should be noted that it was the Liberal Party itself which was the first to really label Hughes’ claims as anti-Semitic in nature, and who went to the CJC with them. Once that happened, the outcome was pretty much assuredly not going to be in Hughes’ favour.

Jay Currie, who basically broke and ran with this story, has this to add:

That said, it was not just a single article. You appeared with Troothers on a number of public occasions. Given that your name appears in the Troother’s publicity material it is a pretty clear that you have gone beyond the “just asking questions” stage. Something which, frankly, needed to be exposed to the voters of Kildonan-St. Paul.

There is a not-all-that-fine line between “investigating the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job” and bending/distorting extant facts to fit a narrative that assumes, from the get-go, that it was. Hughes’ writings fell, I think, into the latter category.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Richard Warman has sued several conservative bloggers and website operators, including Ezra Levant (ezralevant.com), Kate MacMillan (smalldeadanimals.com), Kathy Shaidle (fivefeetoffury.com), and Free Dominion (freedominion.ca). The intent and aim of the lawsuit appears to be an attempt to muzzle and censor, en masse, the conservative blogosphere.

Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative internet. It’s not just his goal — it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet — or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit — they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.

Ezra has a list of ways that one can help out in fighting this latest assault on freedom of speech and conservative opinion, and it basically involves two things: financial contributions and spreading the word. Obviously, fighting a legal battle is a costly ordeal, and Ezra et. al. could use all the donations they can get, either directly or through purchase of various bits of merchandise that they offer. Equally, though, the Reader is encouraged to keep spreading the word about the travesty that are the human rights commissions in Canada, and is likewise encouraged to contact his or her Member of Parliament ( always in a civil tone, and not to a level — quantity, that is — that might be deemed as spamming) to voice concerns about, and objections to, the abuses of the HRCs.

This is a winnable fight. But war is always costly.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

The left-wing Canadian Jewish Congress, the special-interest lobby group most responsible for criminalizing speech in Canada, is obviously feeling some political heat because of what they have wrought. Their figurehead co-presidents, Rabbi Reuven Bulka and Sylvain Abitbol, wrote a muddled column called “Some human rights complaints are frivolous”. That’s actually less mealy-mouthed than it sounds, given that the commissions have a 100% conviction rate for thought crime hearings. But what is the standard for acquittal that the CJC proposes?

“Human rights commissions must constantly recalibrate where the balance lies between free expression and its abridgement, but the determination of where to place the fulcrum must always be based on the statutory standard that such expression is �likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

and

“the appropriate application of statutory criteria is our best defence against those who would eliminate the law to protect their interests, and against those who would use the law to promote a narrow political agenda.”

In other words, the concept of a “pre-crime” is still fine by them. No-one has to be exposed to hatred or contempt for someone to be found guilty. It just has to be “likely” that could happen. And hatred or contempt — emotional feelings — are enough. The CJC doesn’t even think that a discriminatory act is necessary for a conviction. They support the notion of thought crimes.

If the human rights commissions apply the standards in this fuzzy-headed op-ed, Mark Steyn and I will still be convicted.

What an embarrassment the CJC has become. Essentially they are pleading for Steyn and I as special cases. Is it because I’m a Jew and Steyn sounds like he might be, too? Is it because we’re being sued by Muslim fanatics? Or is it because the CJC is taking some political heat for their support of these illiberal, anti-intellectual commissions, and the CJC’s alliance with Richard Warman, the serial human rights complainant and foul-mouthed, anti-Black, misogynist bigot?

The CJC’s op-ed will be seen as nothing but more proof for anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who claim — with historical and statistical validity — that the hate speech provisions are a tool used mainly by secular, leftist Jews to punish their anti-Semitic critics. But now that those same precedents are being used against Jews and philo-Semites by Islamic fascists, the CJC wants to change the rules.

As disgusting a thing as Holocaust denial is, we began the slide down this slippery slope of censorship, and the attendant denial of the legitimate right to that every human being is theoretically entitled to, when we made it illegal to say that the Holocaust was just a hoax. And anyone who says that Levant is innocent, but then turns around and says that the likes of Ernst Zundel are guilty, is just a hypocrite.

Freedom of expressions means that even those opinions we personally consider distasteful have a right to be said aloud, or it means nothing at all.