I wonder if that’s why the HRC panel is letting the Muslim complainants get away with so much weird behaviour in the Mark Steyn show trial: being unprepared, entering UN studies into evidence, not to mention the entire blogosphere, etc.
It’s a good question. Would the BCHRT accept such shoddy lawyering from a WASP complainant’s counsel? Would they be so indulgent? I don’t know.
But I do know one thing. In a free society, when you seek to censor your critics rather than debate them, when you whine to a kangaroo court about the use of the word “Mohammedan”, you can pretty much be guaranteed you’re going to hear it a helluva lot more.
That’s what Khurrum Awan and Faisal Joseph don’t seem to understand: the hatred and contempt directed towards them is not because of Mark Steyn’s article in Maclean’s. It’s because of their own graceless manner in responding to that article. They can expect to be mocked for a long, long time.