Update: Welcome, SteynOnline readers!
Ezra Levant posts some great video of his and Mark Steyn's testimony before the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights, which is reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act and particularly Section 13 of that act.
What stood out to me was a response of MP Joe Comartin (NDP, Windsor-Tecumseh, ON) to Mark Steyn. Comartin asks Levant and Steyn whether they'd be willing to appear before the committee in the future, and whether they could supply documentation for some of the allegations they had made about the actions of the CHRC. Levant agrees, and notes how surprised he was when he realized that these were not merely allegations or conspiracy theories, but that they were really happening. Steyn also indicates that he couldn't believe the actions of the CHRC and the CHRT. Then follows this exchange:
Steyn: ...I'm not going to let this go. I don't believe secret trials have any place in this country, except in the most extreme national security circumstances - and even then that's debatable. But they certainly have no place over so-called hate speech or pre-crime. It's a disgrace, it shames this country, and you as the parliamentary oversight for the commission and the tribunal should do something about that.Watch the clip starting at about 4:40:
Comartin: Well I get to decide what we do - what I do. This is a parliamentary [sic], Mr. Steyn.
Is it me or is Comartin defensive and uncomfortable with Steyn's direct challenge to the Committee? He laughs, and then retreats to the elementary school comeback: "You're not the boss of me." It seems somewhat arrogant, even. Not, "It's our job to decide that", but "I get to decide what we do." To take another elementary school line, He's the king of the castle, and that dirty rascal Steyn shouldn't dare to suggest a course of action. To his credit he catches his ego-centric response mid-takeoff and rephrases, but I think it betrays what lies beneath. It's almost as if he knows what's right, but doesn't want to be told to do it. Would he respond the same way to a concerned constituent - who is the boss of him?
For the most part, I didn't find Comartin's questions malicious or evasive. He did toss a lame softball to the effect that allowing the publication of Mein Kampf did not prevent Hitler from carrying out the Holocaust. Steyn - and Levant, later - hit this one out of the park with ease. But he did also express a desire to hear from Levant and Steyn again. That's a good thing. The more opportunity Steyn and Levant have to shred the bad arguments for Section 13, the better.
