Opinion Polls Trump Principles. Better Not To Vote At All

[CBC] CBC’s Rosemary Barton says there’s some debate within the Liberal caucus over the bill, which the party opposes, but leader Stéphane Dion doesn’t seem to want an election right now.

”The Liberals pride themselves on being close to immigrant communities in this country,” Barton says, “but most of them also want to avoid an election. As recently as [last] Friday there was a push inside the Liberal caucus to try and trigger an election, but it would appear the only person who’s digging in his heels is Stéphane Dion.”

…

Reluctant to face an election with opinion polls showing a lack of enthusiasm for his leadership, Dion and his party have been abstaining or not showing up for key parliamentary votes for months now.

The rest.

Sudbury And Kingston Papers: Abolish Section 13.1

[Sudbury Star, re-running the Whig-Standard’s editorial] If there is any common sense in Ottawa, and that may be asking a lot, then the federal government’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will follow Rick Dykstra’s advice.

The St. Catharines MP has introduced a motion to have the committee review controversial section 13.1 of the Canada Human Rights Act that is at the heart of two recent high-profile human rights cases.

The rest.

Waterloo Record: Free Speech Gets Kicked In The Head

The Waterloo Record’s new slogan: More Balls Than The Vancouver Sun.

[Record editorial] For five depressing days in a nondescript courtroom in Vancouver last week, one of the most important rights in Canada — the right to free speech — was repeatedly kicked in the head.

vs.

[Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun] From the start, the tribunal should have agreed that Steyn’s Oct. 26, 2006 piece was insulting and wrong-headed. It might even have said it’s regrettable that Maclean’s gave space to this kind of incendiary sarcasm.

But then the tribunal should have told the congress it’s not the job of human rights agencies to police hate crimes — constitutionally that is a federal government responsibility. It is also not its job to regulate the content of a national magazine.

Not their job to find them guilty, but only to smear them? Sorry, pal. There’s no hedging on this bet.

Vancouver Sun: Please Don’t Complain About Us Next, We Hate Incendiary Sarcasm, Too

By pursuing this blatant assault on free speech in such an inappropriate forum, the congress drew far more attention to Steyn’s two-year-old article than it deserved or would have received.

…

From the start, the tribunal should have agreed that Steyn’s Oct. 26, 2006 piece was insulting and wrong-headed. It might even have said it’s regrettable that Maclean’s gave space to this kind of incendiary sarcasm.

The rest.

Witness In Maclean’s Case: Law Is Practically Useless Because Of Attorney-General Supervision

National Post – [Awan] repeated his complaint that Maclean’s, based in Toronto, does not belong to the Ontario Press Council, and thus there is no authority with the power to “condemn the journalist, condemn the publication, direct them to publish a letter to the editor.”

He said the criminal law against “wilful promotion of hatred” is “practically useless” because prosecutors require the federal Attorney-General’s consent to lay charges.

The rest.