Jennifer Lynch and Richard Moon testify on Monday

I plan on being there. They will appear before the House of Commons Justice Committee starting at 3:30 p.m.

Ezra Levant fisks a recent speech by Richard Moon in which he attacks Ezra and Mark Steyn for their attacks on the corruption of human rights commissions. I would advise anyone who bridles at their criticisms to follow the links to their sources. See for yourself whether employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission have in fact admitted under oath to posting anti-Semitic and anti-gay filth online. Ezra has several links in the above post.

Mark Steyn also posts on this:

Richard Moon has decided to join Pearl Eliadis and Bernie Farber as a last-ditch defender of Canada's "human rights" commissions. He's certainly entitled to his opinion. Oh, wait, no. This is Canada, so he's not. But, fortunately for Prof Moon, his opinions happen to coincide with the state regulators, so he's okay.

Ezra Levant responds to Professor Moon here. Let me make just one point. The professor sets out in this speech to demolish the claim that Section 13 has a 100 per cent conviction rate. As he says, I have made this statement frequently:

When Mark Steyn makes the claim he likes also to point out that not even Iran and North Korea have a 100% conviction rate.

True. I said it to Parliament and I stand by it. How do we know the professor is a weasel? One giveaway line. This is how he rebuts my outrageous falsehood - by conceding the point:

It is true that all s. 13 complaints adjudicated by the Tribunal have been upheld.

In other words, it's not a falsehood. Ezra and I were right all along. Until last month's judgment in the Lemire case, nobody prosecuted under Section 13 had ever been acquitted - with the sole exception of the "Canadian Nazi Party", which was let off on the quaint grounds that it did not in fact exist. But, if you had the misfortune to enjoy corporeal existence and you were charged under Section 13, you would be convicted of the crime. As Professor Moon admits in plain English, Ezra and I are right on this.

So his "rebuttal" consists not of demonstrating, as he promises his unfortunate audience, that our claims are "false and malicious" but that, even though they're true, they're nothing to worry about. Relax, he says. Sure, everybody prosecuted under Section 13 gets convicted, but don't worry about it, because the "human rights" commission prosecutes very few people so the 100 per cent conviction rate simply demonstrates their shrewd eye for a good case, and their ability to winnow out all the ones where the defendant would be acquitted.

Really? So the 100 per cent conviction rate is just a tribute to the fine judgment of CHRC agents? In that case, why has one man been the plaintiff on every case since 2002?

This reminds me just a tad of the White House's attempt to demonize and isolate Fox News. Instead of dealing decisively with nuke-building Iranian leaders, with the worsening situation in Afghantisan, with the worsening unemployment figures and the growing American fears of bankruptcy through run-amok deficits, the Obama administration is bullying the news outlets and talk radio. That's sort of what's happening here: make this about Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn as a sleight of hand so no one will see the very real problems not only with the [lack of] principle behind "human rights" commissions in the first place, but the very real problems with how they have operated.

My concern is this: how knowledgeable are the Members of Parliament who are going to question these witnesses on Monday. I hope I am not sitting there gritting my teeth in frustration that no one follows up with hard evidence from a Tribunal transcript to expose the bafflegab and misdirection that has characterized defences of these bodies and their dangers to cherished civil rights.

By the way, here are the transcripts of Mark and Ezra's appearance before the same committee on Oct. 5. I hope all the MPs read these transcripts.