Old home week at the Washington Times

Pete Vere’s fine summary of the Mark Steyn case includes quotes from Paul Tuns and yours truly…

“Left unchecked, Mr. Steyn said the CHRC could bring about a relationship between the state and the press similar to that of the former Soviet Union, in which ‘basically the state regulates the bounds of public expression.’

 ”Citing previous cases, Mr. Steyn noted both that no accused has ever won a case once the CHRC referred it to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and that truth is not a defense when dealing with the commission or the tribunal.

“Whereas facts, quotes and statistics may be accurately cited by the author, what the commissions bases its judgment upon is whether the person reading it is offended.”

(…)

“Like Mr. Steyn, Mr. Tuns is concerned that a state apparatus is giving its stamp of approval to certain views over those it deems politically incorrect.

“‘I would be against these tribunals even if they were ruling in favor of our side,‘ he said. ‘Essentially, the human rights tribunals are making decisions on what seems offensive to one group or another. Offensiveness is not the same as harmfulness. Offensiveness is subjective, and it’s difficult for the alleged perpetrators to guess what would be offensive to someone.'”