Aren't HRCs powerless in the Global Age? Part II

A comment over at BigCityLib makes this distinction:

"HRC's are a mechanism by which disputes are mediated and resolved...not an instrument of censorship"

That's true, HRCs aren't explicit censors, merely unwitting ones. The case of Ezra Levant and another one against Maclean's Magazine bolster my case. That the various proponents of hate speech law can't seem to divest themselves of the logic implying that we "speechynistas" are in fact Nazi sympathizers, they are subverting the specious case against Levant/Steyn/Maclean's as more business-as-usual Nazi hunting. Though the proponents of HRCs freely admit that the HRCs maybe acting speciously in the case of Levant and Co, it has done little to help the defendants by painting them as unwitting Nazis.

Whether a malignant goverment body proclaims that they are explicit censors through legislation or on their Masthead is a pretty naive understanding of how censorship in a free democracy can exist. In countries opposed to western values of free speech, that ideal is overt, there is no pretense suggesting otherwise. In western societies, where freedom of speech is valued at a premium, (or ought be IMAO) any overt movement to supress or deny that ideal must do so via stealth or through innocuous government oversight. Though the latter is clearly less severe (probably accidental, too) than say a real campaign of goverment coerced censorship, it's effects still are felt. In this case Levant/Maclean's/Steyn and FreeDominion.ca are the ones swimming against that ripple. Unfortunately, for the HRCs professional plaintiffs, the neo-nazi issue is done and over with.

Ernst Zundel happened. No Nazi smarter than a tack will replicate the actions of Zundel. First, they will move their servers elsewhere, outside of the jurisdiction of Canada's HRCs. Failing that they'll just leave and go where they may incite "hatred" with impugnity. All the while avoiding prosecution by artfully staying within the limits of libel and slander speech codes. You may get Canadians to go along with the HRC but Americans will be a much tougher nut to crack. Maybe we could put pressure on the tinpot goverments who see a future in providng free speech services to beleaguered western states? Is anyone starting to see the cost overrun and the diplomatic legwork required to fully protect Canadians from "hate" speech in a globalized world. Let's hope so.

But that brings me to another question. Now that the big fish have been scared off will the HRCs professional plantiffs continue to hunt smaller game? Do we really need them to arbitrate the opinions of the Western Standard, Macleans and FreeDominion?

Maybe Part III will be about how conservative writers and blogcommenters now need to resort to the same evasive tactics that those grubby neo-jerries employ. What will the cost be for the service providers of Canada? Will Ezra and Mark take each other's hand and drive straight into the canyon? Will Shirlene McGovern undergo a Linda Tripp style makeover. I guess we'll see.

Note: It occurs to me that referring to the HRCs as predatory body is probably out of bounds and none too accurate. I've edited this post to correct that. My error was one of classification and not of ill intent.