For Christians Easter Sunday is an eerie pause between Good Friday’s tumult and the even greater upheaval of Easter Monday, so quiet, C.S. Lewis says in the Narnia Chronicles, “you feel as if nothing was ever going to happen again.” For non-Christians it’s a chance to hunt coloured eggs and wonder idly whether trading a cosmic message of redemption for a bunny made of bad-tasting chocolate was quite the deal it seemed at the time. And whether there isn’t something to be said for the occasional unnaturally quiet day. Click here to read the rest.

[Correction: This column contains a stupid mistake. Christians of course believe the Resurrection occurred on Sunday not Monday. Mea culpa.]

The Supreme Court's latest howler subordinating free speech to imaginary group rights prompted a vigorous outcry from journalists. But from politicians we heard eerie silence. Click here to read the rest.

Wherever the hidden imam may be hiding, it doesn’t seem to be the pages of Canadian newspapers. Which won’t bother Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad much since he despises Canada. But it should concern readers. Click here to read the rest.

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.