From a Globe and Mail editorial:

It is easy enough to understand why Muslims took offence in both instances (the Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant cases - BD). The Mohammed cartoons, which prompted violent protests elsewhere after their initial publication, were designed to test the bounds of tolerance. And the excerpt from Mr. Steyn was derided by The Economist as "an alarmist screed" that is "notable for its simplistic demographic projections."

It is perhaps even understandable that Muslim organizations, seeking to use all of the available channels to make known that they had taken offence, would file complaints with human-rights commissions, if only for the publicity. Less clear is why those commissions would take seriously, even for a moment, the notion that privately owned publications do not have the right to offend or that they are required to give equal space to both sides of every issue.

Neither Maclean's nor the Western Standard published materials that incited violence or other injustices against Muslims. They did not violate anyone's human rights. Recognizing this, the commissions should have immediately identified the cases brought to them as nuisance complaints and dismissed them. That they have not done so suggests a change in their mandates is much needed. ...

"It never occurred to us that this instrument, which we intended to deal with discrimination in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services, would be used to muzzle the expression of opinion," Canadian Civil Liberties Association founder Alan Borovoy recently lamented. Yet that is precisely what the commissions are doing - if not through their punishments (typically relatively small fines), then through the public shaming of those deemed to have caused offence, not to mention the legal costs of those who must defend themselves from complaints. It's time to rein them in before further damage is done to Canadians' right to free expression.

It would be interesting to find out how the Globe reacted to the 2002 Alberta Human Rights Commission decision in the case of Harvey Kane and the Jewish Defence League vs. Alberta Report. See the bottom of the Levant post for details.

From the NYT:

The “usual gang of idiots,” as the editorial staff of Mad magazine lovingly describes itself, produces cultural and political parody every month. For the next issue, however, the gang has recruited some very special help.

“Why George W. Bush Is in Favor of Global Warming,” a two-page spread that the magazine calls an exposé, has been illustrated by 10 Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonists. They try to offer reasons why environmental apocalypse might be a good thing for President Bush, with observations like, “His worries about how future generations will remember his presidency won’t matter if there are no future generations.”

Other potential upsides are that Iraq could literally be melted off the earth, and rising oceans could submerge lefty strongholds like New York, Boston and San Francisco.

From the NYT:

A serious discussion on pressing national issues may be good for the country. But it isn’t necessarily good television.

That was the prospect faced Thursday night by CNN, which broadcast what may be the final Democratic debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. While the candidates seemed to captivate the A-list crowd of Hollywood stars and power brokers in Los Angeles’s Kodak Theater, in CNN’s control room — inside a crowded truck parked behind the auditorium — the producers were exasperated and at times seemingly bored by their own broadcast.

From CP via CTV.ca:

NDP Leader Jack Layton wants Parliament to take a stand in support of an Afghan journalist sentenced to death for allegedly insulting Islam.

In an interview Sunday, Layton complained the Conservative government has been largely silent on the case of Sayad Parwez Kambaksh, convicted by a court in northern Afghanistan two weeks ago.

"We have every right as a country to speak out on this issue," said the NDP chief.

"We have soldiers who have lost their lives on a mission that was supposed to be helping to build democracy. It doesn't get much more fundamental than this."

Neil Hrab, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, said diplomats at the Canadian embassy in Kabul have expressed their concern to the Afghan government about the sentence meted out to Kambaksh, and Ottawa continues to "actively pursue" the matter.

"Canada frequently stresses the need for the Afghan government to fulfil its obligations to promote and protect human rights, including freedom of expression and religious belief," said Hrab.

Layton, however, maintained that a more public expression of Canadian sentiment is needed.

He said he's hoping to get all-party support for a resolution being prepared for tabling in the House of Commons that will condemn the death sentence and call on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to intervene in the case.