Which side of the war would you like to be on? [Mark Steyn]
Old-fashioned types might think that those Britons - okay, make that "Britons" - helping to manufacture bombs for the Taliban are engaged in an act of treason. But, as a current court case in Quebec helps clarify, giving support to the Queen's enemies in their attempts to kill your compatriots is now just another vibrant, colorful manifestation of cultural diversity.
As the International Free Press Society notes, Said Namouh is on trial up north for aiding and abetting terrorism. The Crown charges that Mr Namouh distributed jihadist snuff videos, offered advice on bomb-making, volunteered his expertise for a planned truck bombing, and threatened governnments (including Canada's) with troops in Afghanistan. Defense counsel René Duvall doesn't deny any of this, but says his client's enthusiasm for violent jihad is protected on grounds of freedom of religion and (mirthless chuckle from your humble typist) Canadians' cherished right to freedom of expression. As Maître Duvall put it outside the court, "Where do you draw the line?"
In fact, the line seems to be pretty clear: If a jihadist says he wants to kill Canadian troops, he's just exercising his right to freedom of religion. If I quote what he said in Canada's biggest-selling news weekly, we'll be charged with "flagrant Islamophobia" and hauled up in court.
Meanwhile, the genius jurists at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal (which devoted one day of last June's show trial to examining the "tone" of my jokes) have rejected a "hate speech" complaint against the Koran. Fair enough, but the grounds for rejection are striking:
Humphreys dismissed the case after ruling that Simpson’s complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.
As Commissar Humphreys sees it, the "Human Rights" Code is not merely a set of laws to be applied to all citizens equally, but has ideological objectives which take precedence.