Getting drawn into discussions of this supposed movie about Islam is a fool’s game. Who made it? Why? Is it the worst film ever? Does it even exist? None of that matters. Click here to read the rest.

Despite Parliament debating whether to figure out when human life begins, the sky failed to rain down on Canadians’ heads in savage blue chunks. Who saw that coming? Click here to read the rest.

Ottawa atheists are crying censorship, the Citizen reports, because OC Transpo won't run their ads on buses. Must one point out once again that freedom of speech means not that you have a right to an audience, or a publisher, but only that if you find both the government will not forcibly intervene to silence you? If they claimed instead that they'd been denied equal treatment before the law (because public buses run some people's ads but not theirs) I'd be a bit more sympathetic. Only a bit, because governments quite properly tend to regulate public spaces not so everyone can say whatever they want but so everyone must avoid highly provocative or offensive displays in the street. But at least the atheists would not be putting forward a blatantly silly and petulant pseudo-constitutional argument which, among its other flaws, makes me doubt that their ads would impress me if I did see them.

The Ottawa Citizen notes that "Canada is being told it’s not doing enough in areas such as aboriginal rights, violence against women, poverty and racism by UN Human Rights Council delegates representing countries that allow torture, jail bloggers and amputate the limbs of criminals." The Council even noted criticisms by Iran, which is not a member, of our treatment of migrants, aboriginal women etc. And of course our government hurriedly groveled. Now I'm not saying Canada could not improve its record in some areas including free speech and property rights. But to be critiqued by the UNHRC, whose membership contains some pretty scurvy regimes, invites a classic retort from the golden age of rhetoric: Ah shaddap.

Credit where due: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written to the Canadian Federation of Students objecting to a CFS resolution supporting student unions who deny campus-club status, and with it money and office space, to pro-life organizations. The CCLA's general counsel, Alan Borovoy, said his organization has "a strongly pro-choice orientation" which is strangely predictable; civil liberties associations often seem to regard liberty as something desirable primarily as a way of advancing left-wing causes. But that makes it all the more admirable that they wrote this letter asking the CFS "What is there about these anti-abortion groups that warrant such special denigration?" and saying "the proper response is argument, not censorship." Why you'd have to tell a university student organization that is a mystery to me, but kudos to the CCLA for doing so.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces criminal charges for being rude about a religion. As for what he said, well, you don't need to hear it, do you? The government says he's a bad man and should go away and not be heard. And that's good enough, isn't it? I mean, who could disagree with the state over something like that? Especially when it can put you in jail for saying stuff it doesn't like.

So now the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee wants to boycott Israel... again. According to CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan, "In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general." And do they also want to boycott Palestinians unless they explicitly condemn terror attacks? No see when you fire rockets at Jewish kindergartens it um uh that is to say...

What can I say about hate speech investigations into Maclean’s magazine? I mean that literally. This used to be a free country where we had the hard-won right to speak our minds without fear. But now the Canadian Islamic Congress has complained about a Mark Steyn piece in Maclean’s to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and to the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Commissions and, according to Maclean’s National Editor Andrew Coyne, the first two have agreed to “launch inquiries” into the complaints while the third is dithering. The CHRC, incidentally, won’t confirm or deny this claim. Something about open government, I believe.

Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone’s right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows?

All in all it’s much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers. They are members of the Asteraceae family, the second-largest family of flowering plants after Orchidaceae. You may be thinking the common daisy, white with a yellow centre, is nice but bland. But my goodness, get into African daisies and painted daisies (a.k.a. “tansies”) and the ox-eye and the spectacular Glebionis carinata and what a feast for the eye. None of them file hate speech complaints with aggressive paralegal tribunals either. What’s not to like?

The issue here is not whether I want to say, for instance, that contrary to some ignorant stereotypes the Prophet Mohammed was a really nice guy, a teddy bear in fact. It is whether if I say such a thing I may be hauled before some tribunal to answer for the fact that in Sudan I would have a mob howling for my blood, or because I didn’t say Peace Be Upon Him.

So I refuse to be drawn into any sort of debate about what might be causing image problems for the Islamic faith. Not that it has any. My lips are sealed on such questions as dishonour killings. I’m sticking to flowers. Or favicons, you know, those cute little icons that appear next to some of the items in your browser “Favourites” list. How, I ask you, can a business in this day and age not have a favicon? A nice blue one with white letters, or a flag, or a tiny building or something. You can even have your own picture. Unless your faith forbids depictions of the human face.

Gaaack! I didn’t say that. Nor would I dare suggest that these human rights tribunals, at once prosecutor and judge, are alien to our constitutional order and should be abolished. You see, section 48 (1) (2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act stipulates, respecting the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (to which the CHRC may refer obstinate defendants), that “Persons appointed as members of the Tribunal must have experience, expertise and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights.” If you think that means sensitivity to ancient rights like free speech, you’re about ready for some “sensitivity” training. Not for me, thanks. I’m doing daisies.

Besides self-preservation, I’m skipping this issue because Maclean’s is a large, established organization with lots of money. Some of my media colleagues are startled that not even the big guys are immune which does, I suppose, show how the appetite grows with the eating. But I say thank goodness the Star Chambers have gone after a wealthy organization that can fight back.

No, sorry, I don’t say that. Nor would I dream of claiming it is not against the law to be rude, that it is illegal to incite violence or engage in conspiracies but it is not a crime to be impolite nor should it be. If I weren’t such a coward I might find myself hollering three once-familiar arguments about freedom of speech at legislators, judges and everyone else who supports this latter-day censorship. First, sunlight destroys evil; that is, open debate reveals which beliefs are false or odious. Second, by debating things instead of just reciting them we come to a more vigorous appreciation of those beliefs we decide are true. Third, if people are neither good nor wise enough to be entrusted with sorting out truth from falsehood (and frankness from rudeness) they cannot possibly be permitted to elect governments to do it for them.

Luckily I’m too smart to say anything of the sort. The essential point here, the legal crux of the matter, is that Canadian Islamic Congress National President Mohamed Elmasry’s feelings are hurt. Egad.

Daisies. White, purple, yellow, pink. So pretty. And freedom of speech may soon be pushing them up in this country.

[First published in the Ottawa Citizen]