Many of you are aware of the ongoing Canadian "Human Rights Commision's" persecution of Mark Steyn and the Canadian Magazine "Maclean's".  In an article entitled "I am starring in one of those movies - you know the one where only the maverick investigator knows something scary is going on" Steyne says "This week, in a brief objecting to a constitutional challenge to Section 13 of Canada's "human rights" code, the Justice Department declared:

"Mr. Lemire complains that the prohibition against disseminating hatred via the Internet is not accompanied by the defences of truth and fair comment that are available to traditional news media in torts ranging from defamation to seditious libel. This argument is misleading. The defences of truth and fair comment remain available to torts such as defamation and seditious libel, regardless of the medium in which they occur. However, none of the traditional media can avail themselves of these defences in cases of alleged hate propaganda, whether the communication appears in print, on television or on a website.

"As the Federal Court has explained, defences that may be available in tort actions are not available in cases of hate propaganda because the prohibition is concerned with adverse effects, not with intent."

In other words, truth cannot be used as a defense against "hate crimes" charges in Canada.

Steyn goes on to say: "If you're an editor or a publisher, Canada's "human rights" regime is building a world in which the only choice on key issues of public debate is between state censorship or self-censorship. In Toronto last week, I had lunch in a fashionable eatery on King Street with a former editor who couldn't see what all the fuss was about. "You need to lighten up," she said. "Write about a movie." From next month, I'll have no choice. Although the Osgoode Hall law students protest that all they want is a "right of reply," when the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal finds us guilty, they are statutorily obligated to issue a cease-and-desist order that will have the effect of preventing Maclean's running any writing on Islam by me or anybody of a similar bent — even though the plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of a single fact or statistic or quotation. "

See entire article here:

For background, if you are not familiar with this case, see older article here.