Mark Steyn & Andrew Coyne weigh in with their respective takes on the Sham Human Rights Trial thus far

Andrew Coyne :

Maybe it would be best if we lost this battle

At the tribunal, there’s no defence of fair comment, or good faith, or even truth

So instead we are in court — or rather, not court, but some mad parody of a court, whose contours seem to bend and stretch like some psychedelic vision circa Yellow Submarine. Things are not quite as bad in B.C. as in Ontario, where the province’s human rights commission felt able to issue a judgment without the cost and inconvenience of a hearing. But it’s a near thing.

Mark Steyn:

But we were getting along so well!

Geez, these days I don’t seem able to step out of the house without committing a hate crime

The Globe weighs in a wee bit:

Maclean’s columnist blasts rights panel hearing

Bruce Hutchinson National Post : Reading between the lines in B.C.

Mr. Joseph directed his expert witness back to the actual article. Mr. Steyn “referenced the fact” that some Muslims “have become expert in exploiting the tolerance of pluralist societies,” said Dr. Hirji. “So there, I think, is an emphasis on the fact that Muslims may plead a sense of victimization, but they clearly are not. They have learned how to manipulate political institutions, to their advantage.”

A comment steeped in irony, given the circumstances.