Ez and Mark school Parliament
My workday is shot…
Just watched Ezra and Mark give chapter and verse on the prefidities of the CHRC. Some of the members of the Justice Committee knew this stuff, for some it was brand new.
Ez and Mark could not help but mention Richard Warman over and over. It would certainly be interesting if Warman were to be called by the Committee. Especially if one or two of the members of the Committee were really well briefed.
NB: Listen to Steyn on Rob Breakenridge Tonite 7 pm Mountain Time
October 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
That was my opinion too Jay. Lynch may well have difficulty ducking and shcking this bullet – as will, of course Warman and DND.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Mark and Ezra were excellent. The commie was clueless—that’s to be expected. And although my French is weak, I’d say two of the questioners were a couple of Blocheads—based on Ezra’s and Marks’s responses.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
A brilliant session.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Forgot about this? Where was it on the web – CPAC; Parliament’s site?
I wonder if it’s archived?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Most of the committee members seemed to believe it best that the Supreme court,if necessary, reconsider the constitutionality of s.13. In the interim, the Minister of Justice will be disinclined to attend to the CHRC’s implementation problems…it’s a matter before the courts, arms-length relationship, etc.
A way of fast-tracking Lemire’s case has to be found.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Craig, it is archived here:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=5071
Mark and Ezra were great. I was surprised at how little some of the members seemed to be aware of the situation.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
They did a great job, but I was less than impressed with the MPs – some of them were clueless which begs the question – what in the world were they doing on this committee? They didn’t need to know the stuff before they were on the committee, but once appointed they should have a least read some of the background information. Doesn’t make me feel a whole lot of confidence in the future of Parliament or governance in Canada.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I’ll have to disagree that both French questioners were Blocheads – if, indeed, that was meant in a pejorative way.
I’m not a fan of LeMay but I like Serge Menard a lot. He’s a smart inquisitor, a former criminal trial lawyer and he’s worked hard to ensure there’s protection for journalists and anonymous sources in Canadian law. I liked his questions to Ezra, and so did he. They weren’t accusatory, they were merely there for clarification, and he rightly stated that Tribunal Members don’t have the authority to declare whether something is constitutional or not.
He is, however, the Bloc Quebecois for the Montreal-area Marcus-Aurelius Fortin, as Steyn calls it. Many will fault him for that.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
> I was surprised at how little some of the
> members seemed to be aware of the situation.
I wasn’t. Ottawa is where Canada “mainstreams” its retards (the excess ones who wouldn’t fit in Quebec, that is).
October 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
So who were the dumbest men on the panel or whatever you call it? The two frogs or the commie? I can’t believe these people think they are my superiors and are smart enough to tell me how to live.
It was very entertaining but in a larger sense, a waste of time.
If Canadians would stop being such wimps and just DEFY these clueless morons, we’d be better off.
A bunch of rich guys arguing what it says on some stupid piece of paper. Who CARES, jezuz???
October 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Some MPs seemed to be better prepared than others. I can’t speak to the Bloc questioners since I watched the unfiltered floor feed and they asked questions in a language that I don’t understand, but the Liberal MP who started off the questioning (Murphy, I think) seemed to be conversant about the issues – or at least the Liberal talking point version thereof. If I recall correctly, he even cited a page from Ezra Levant’s book in his questioning. The Conservative MPs lobbed friendly softballs to friendly witnesses. And the Dipper pretty much acted like I’d expect a Dipper to act.
I think we can see some political themes emerging from the questions asked. The Tory questioners seemed to be fixated on Richard Moon’s report, suggesting that Prof. Moon will be called as a witness at some point in the future, and will be used to demolish the CHRC witnesses’ expected arguments that Section 13 should stay. The Liberals were trying to get Ezra and Mark to defend the most egregious, extreme examples of “hate” speech and were successful in getting them to question Keegstra’s conviction. It appears that the Lying Jackal smear-by-association tactics may be alive and well in his party (though Mark Steyn’s quoting of Iggy on free speech was an effective rebuttal). The NDP is friendly to censorship in the name of multiculturalism – go figure. And I still don’t speak French.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
That’s a good summation Cinyc, it will be interesting to see Lynch’s upcoming testimony – “Ezra is a bad man, bloggers are mean, Dean and Richard are good boys. Mark Steyn is a hatermongerer who called my friend Pearl a Pedophile. I’m goin home now. Can I expense this?”
October 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Arnie, my bet is that the coward Lynch will lawyer up and refuse to answer questions (on the Stacey principle) which she does not like.
If even one or two of our Honourable Members follow the breadcrumb trail Ez and Mark carefully laid down the poor woman will be reduced to tears and saying “You’re just big meanies” ten minutes in.
Plus, and I need to check this, I wonder if the Committee can compel testimony from Lucy himself.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Jay
“I need to check this, I wonder if the Committee can compel testimony from Lucy himself”.
He is a public servant and cannot refuse to attend if requested of his department.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Both frogs were Blocheads—based on Steyn’s and Levant’s repetitive answers to them. I have to say the biggest idiot, though, was the commie—quelle surprise! How could these MPs be so clueless? Wasn’t it about a year ago now that Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a private member’s motion to repeal Section 13? Are their memories that short? (Lord knows, my memory is bad, but c’mon already!) Do MPs bother to read any of these motions? What exactly do they do for all the money we pay them?
I’m with Kathy. Stop giving them power over us. Refuse to cooperate with them.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am
I was appalled at the partisan grandstanding, the political agenda ass-coverng, but most of all, the overall indifferent attitude towards fundamental civil freedoms the committee members displayed.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
a parade, a litany of the most appalling affronts to common,natural and criminal law even unto ‘secret trials’ and not ONE of those dough-heads on the committee expressed any shock or surprise or dismay….
what a sad passel of timeserving placemen…how Parliament(US!) is diminished demeaned and soiled with their yawning obtuse ignorant faces representing the people…