Not because they believe in free speech, of course. But rather because they believe in their own continuing power, and don't want to fight someone who can and will fight back.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like any petty tyranny, has a strong instinct for survival. As I predicted last week on the Michael Coren Show, that instinct would cause them to drop the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's. And so they did.

With an RCMP investigation, a Privacy Commission investigation and a pending Parliamentary investigation, they're already fighting a multi-front P.R. war, and losing badly. Not a day goes by when the CHRC isn't pummelled in the media. Holding a show trial of Maclean's and Steyn, like the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal did earlier this month, would be writing their own political death sentence.

So they blinked. Against everything in their DNA, they let Maclean's go. That's the first smart thing they've done; because the sooner they can get the public scrutiny to go away, the sooner they can go about prosecuting their less well-heeled targets, people who can't afford Canada's best lawyers and command the attention and affection of the country's literati.

The BC HRC, the one taking that comedian to "trial," may still "convict," though. (You can and will be prosecuted for the same offense in several jurisdictions.)

Thanks to jdub.

Posted by: Ace at 10:05 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

The review is only three and a half stars, but actually reading it, it sure sounds four stars.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

It's like he can't or won't help himself on this issue by just shutting up at the very least.

In the middle of a conversation about regulating sports betting in Vegas Teh Maverick offers this.

I havenÂ’t won on every issue. I didnÂ’t win on immigration reform, but IÂ’ll go back at it. And IÂ’m glad I did it.

Follow the link to Hot Air for more.

I think we can abandon all hope (if any was left) that the 'lessons learned' version of McCain is gone and we are getting the full on "amnesty now" version. Make your decision accordingly.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:45 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Earlier this year, during the events surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence, I wrote that we should recognize the newly independent country and that I was pleased when President Bush did so. Whatever the circumstances of our U.N. or NATO commitment, the power to recognize foreign sovereigns is securely within the president's authority and was appropriately used in this situation. I wrote:

My default position when it comes to things like this is to support democratic freedom movements. You're going to have to overcome that presumption in order to convince me that Kosovo's independence is a bad thing. You're going to have to go a step further than that to persuade me that we should actively discourage Kosovo's independence.

At the time, several commenters cautioned that Kosovo would be another majority Muslim nation and that it would therefore be a source of trouble for us and especially for Europe because Muslim countries have tended to radicalize in the last few decades. I disagreed, saying:

I think it is a mistake to view Kosovo's independence through our Clash of Civilizations Glasses. It is majority Islamic, but these people are Muslims like the British are Anglican. They're not regular mosque-goers and the salat is not generally followed, much less the hajj. (For example, the rioters yesterday were largely drunk, a big no-no in Islam.) There is no movement to create a sharia court system. Yes, yes, the last time I wrote that, I was told, "Not yet." The possibility that Kosovo may one day get cozy with Wahhabism doesn't, in my mind, justify supporting the subjugation of these people by a different religious and ethnic group--especially not one that hasn't had actual control of the region for close to 10 years. If they want their own country, good for them.

I've got to confess to feeling some indecent pleasure that Michael Totten writes substantially the same thing in next month's Standpoint Magazine. He's a hell of a lot more credible than me. Here are the first and final paragraphs:

On February 17, 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. Some are concerned about what NATO, the United Nations, and the European Union have nurtured there since the military and humanitarian intervention in 1999. James Jatras, a U.S.-based advocate for the Serbian Orthodox Community, put it bluntly last year when he said Kosovo was a “a beachhead into the rest of Europe” for “radical Muslims” and “terrorist elements.” It’s an assertion without evidence. “We’ve been here for so long,” said United States Army Sergeant Zachary Gore in Eastern Kosovo, “and not seen any evidence of it, that we’ve reached the assumption that it is not a viable threat.”

[...]

The danger in Kosovo isnÂ’t that international peace keepers are nurturing a jihad state. Rather, a premature withdrawal may lead to a resumption of the fighting between Serbs and Albanians that they moved in to stop in the first place.

As the man says, go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:22 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

In all the celebration of the Heller case, you may not have noticed another decision by the Supreme Court yesterday, Davis v. FEC.

In Davis the court declared the so-called “Millionaires Amendment” unconstitutional. This amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill created different and more generous contribution limits for candidates running against an opponent who donated $350,000 or more to their own campaign.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito pointed out that life isnÂ’t fair and itÂ’s not for Congress to try and change that.

"Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities. Some have the benefit of a well-known family name," Justice Alito wrote, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. "Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of the election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not the Congress, the power to choose the members of the House ... and it is dangerous business to use the election laws to influence the voters' choices."

While the decision didnÂ’t overturn the entire McCain-Feingold scheme (this section was added on the floor and wasnÂ’t part of the original bill), some see an opening to challenge the entire system, including bans on corporate and union donations.

...the ruling may undercut a key feature of federal election law since 1974: a ban on corporate and union spending on federal campaigns. "The only justifications for those laws are based on an idea of political equality," (election law specialist, Richard Hasen of Loyola Law School) said. "I think the writing is on the wall."

One can only hope.

Overturning the campaign finance scheme as itÂ’s existed since the 70Â’s would probably favor Democrats thanks to the money unions would throw into campaigns but the principle of people being able to participate in the political process without government restrictions is more important. As long as there are sufficient reporting and disclosures methods, it seems citizens should be free to donate as much as they want to whomever they want.

Amusingly, the candidate who brought the suit challenging the amendment has spent $3 million on two House runs and lost both. Sure money helps, but it doesnÂ’t buy victory.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:56 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

David Hardy noticed some factual errors in Justice Stevens' Heller dissent:

Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.

I'd add that at 41 he refers to:

"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States."

Certainly they aren't earthshaking mistakes; correcting them wouldn't change Stevens' conclusions. But they do indicate carelessness from him and from his clerks. We all know he's not the first jurist to make small mistakes of fact, or even large ones. But Hardy's post put me in mind of a notable error in one of his more important recent opinions which made a complete mess of international law.

In Hamdan, Stevens wrote the majority opinion which rested in part on the preposterous idea that the U.S. conflict with Al Qaeda is global, but "not of an international character." Later, it turned out that conclusion was taken verbatim from an amicus brief by some law professors who conveniently elided a critical quote from an international law treatise:

Did the Court engage in a deliberate manipulation or distortion of authorities, as it seem to be the case? Well, no, but that actually doesn’t make things any better. To my surprise, I found out that the Court’s miscitation and misquotation of the Commentary in fact fully reproduces the exact same error in citation and the exact same incomplete quotation in an amicus brief on IHL submitted to the Court by Professors Jinks, Goodman and Slaughter (Hamdan at p. 68, amicus brief at p. 19 – please do look for yourself).

This shows beyond any doubt that the Justices (and, worse, their clerks) DID NOT EVEN READ the Commentary on the Additional Protocols which they cited, certainly one of the most authoritative works on the issue in question.

Stevens' mistake is now binding precedent in the United States. Whoops. (Although, to be perfectly honest, I expect Stevens would have come to the same conclusion by other means if he had been aware of the error.)

Anyway, as I was reading through his dissent's version of the Second Amendment's history today, I found myself thinking how much trouble we would be in if Michael Bellesiles hadn't been so thoroughly discredited. Professors can be trouble. Law clerks, too.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:19 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 541 words, total size 3 kb.

They were only awoken after ground control began to get nervous.

Air India vehemently denies it happened. But, you know, it did.

Thanks to tmi3rd.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

An amendment that would have prohibited the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve from creating regulations to enforce the ban died when the vote was tied 32-32. 29 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted for the amendment while 28 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against it.

Why doesnÂ’t the government trust you to play a few hands of online poker? For the children of course.

The ban requires financial institutions to stop processing payments for online betting sites. But banking industry officials complained the regulations would be onerous and might force them to reject otherwise lawful transactions.

On Wednesday, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., who led the effort to defeat King's amendment, downplayed those complaints.

"The banks have decided that this is a financial burden. We have decided, on the other hand, that our children are worth protecting, and the cost of protecting them is worthy and worthwhile," Bachus said.

Apparently parents never quite enter into the equation.

God help me but I agree withÂ…I canÂ’t bring myself to write it, so letÂ’s just say in this case I agree with the guy quoted below.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who sought the nomination for president this year, said individuals should be allowed to spend money any way they want.

"Over many years, I've come to the conclusion that when we depend on our government to make ... decisions on how we act morally and economically, the government messes up," Paul said.

Amusingly, regulators are apparently having a hard time writing regulations that will actually work. Naturally, that didn’t phase 28 Republicans who are so worried about ‘the children’.

My guess is a lot of those Republicans will be losing this November so perhaps this will be worked out next year. No, I donÂ’t think they will be defeated because of this vote but whatÂ’s the point of being a Republican if you vote for big government nanny state legislation?

How funny is it that Barney Frank and the Democrats are on the side of individual freedom against House Republicans? And by funny, I mean maddeningly depressing.

h/t The Corner

Posted by: DrewM at 08:17 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not sure why Allah doubts Delahunt meant what he seems to have meant.

These rotten bastards have not been particularly cautious about expressing their outright solidarity-of-convenience with Al Qaeda in the past. Once in a while a particularly nasty little thought like this -- "I hope Al Qaeda kills you, because you are my political opponent" -- will slip past the internal editor and wind up on C-SPAN. You can't have hatred bubbling in your stomach every minute of every day without vomiting some of it up from time to time.

He meant exactly what he seemed to mean. For these bastards, Al Qaeda is not the enemy; only Americans who stand between themselves and political power are. In some situations, Al Qaeda is a genuine ally in the real war.

Update: As that ran a little hot, I thought I'd put up a positive, comforting image to remind us all of our better selves.

Posted by: Ace at 03:58 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

The coming Mother of All Flip-Flops from The Chosen One?

And on a related noted: Liberal bloggers have spent many months castigating William Kristol and other pro-war commentators for failing to confess their errors; many have called (explicitly) for their ban from public commentary, given the premise they were so badly wrong, have not accounted for their errors, and therefore ought not be allowed to pollute the national town hall with their lies and stupidities.

What a difference a surge makes! Here's Ezra Klein, explaining why, actually, he wasn't wrong at all about the surge:

the argument over the surge was never an argument positing that more troops couldn't lead to less violence.

Of course not, darling.

Ha, ha. That is rich. Rich, velvety, and creamy, with just a hint of -- is that? -- essence of cashew? Put some dark chocolate around that sweet confection and sell the recipe to M&M Mars. You'll make millions, Ezra.

So, for Klein, Yglesias, Greenwald, etc., admitting error is for the little people.

(Though how they manage to rate themselves as anything more than little escapes me.)

Thanks to CJ again.

Posted by: Ace at 03:43 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.