When my troubles with Canada’s state censors started a year and a half ago, I took to referring to them as “human rights” commissions, and the scare quotes have been working overtime ever since. It’s tough on my typing finger but it indicates that these loathesome bodies have nothing to do with real rights. I’m glad to see The Calgary Herald’s headline writer seems to have embraced the style:

’Rights’ Body Wants To Squash Free-Speech Defences

The rest of the editorial is one of the strongest yet:

In these despotic forums, the vehicle of choice for those who wish to silence those whose opinions they don’t like, what is conventionally called a human rights complaint is less accusation, than old-style Soviet denunciation. Not surprisingly, with no right to plead truth or fair comment, and with no obligation upon the prosecution to prove intent or follow rules of evidence–circumstantial evidence and hearsay is accepted in human-rights cases — defendants hardly ever emerge victorious from these proceedings.
Last year’s prosecution of Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn is a high-profile exception that proves the rule: Only when it became clear that they faced a rhetorically armed and solidly funded opponent did the censors back away from the stoning, leaving only the B. C. tribunal to excuse him on a nuance to avoid a complete public relations meltdown.

It’s heartening to see a mainstream newspaper designating these institutions as “despotic.” If Americans look at how routinely and effectively Canada and Europe police speech and opinion, they’ll understand why, to a certain ”progressive” mindset, the “fairness” doctrine and other restraints have such appeal.