“Being acquitted by a pretend court must be something like being found healthy by a pretend doctor.”

The magazine has essentially been awarded retroactive state approval to run, as it did two years ago, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone.

This was a case about religion; specifically, a critique and criticism of religion. Yes, religion is one of the defined groups to which protection from discrimination is granted, but somewhere along the line an important distinction became blurred, or erased outright.

There is a world of difference between “Catholics need not apply” and “Catholicism is nutty.” As a recent report from the pro-secular Center for Inquiry succinctly put it: “Believers deserve protection. Beliefs do not.”

If we can no longer make that distinction, then any critique of any religion is off limits — it becomes a de facto blasphemy law.

I’m not sure which is more alarming — that the Tribunal was empowered to hear this case in the first place, or that it failed to note this distinction.