Censorship of the press coming to you

Large Canadian news networks have been reluctant to cover an issue that is pitting the fundamental individual freedoms of Canadians against the ever-encroaching power of the state. While CNN, the BBC, Fox News, Reuters, The Economist and even The Australian follow the controversy, it has been mostly up to YouTube and political blogs to bring this news to Canadians.
The controversy began in 2005 during the "Danish Cartoon Riots". Groups of Muslims in Europe and the Middle East were encouraged by their radical leaders to protest against cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that they found offensive to Islam. Some of these protests descended into rioting, culminating in the burning of a Danish embassy and in the death of a dozen people.
These events were a shock to the world. Many newspapers republished the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech and to inform the public. Others decided it was unnecessary and inappropriate. In Canada, the Western Standard magazine chose to do the former. Whether the decision was appropriate or not, it was entirely in its right to do so.
Of course, in Canada, there were no riots, no chants of "death to Denmark" and no bomb plots on Danish embassies by the Muslim population. However, a Saudi Imam was so enraged that he called the police to arrest the publisher of the magazine. His 911 call was dismissed. The Imam then turned to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and argued that Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Western Standard, had undermined his human rights. In Canada, where separation of Church and State and the individual's freedom of speech are cherished, one would think this Imam would have been laughed out of court.
However, the state-funded Commission has taken upon itself to be the arbiter of what is proper and politically correct speech, and the scarier part is that they have the power to punish individuals for speech they consider "illegal". Of course, certain hate-speech laws are necessary, for instance, speech that calls for murder, incites a riot, or speech that harmfully libels an individual should be monitored. Levant, however, did none of these things.
The Commission decided that the mere fact that the Imam was offended is grounds for forcing a private citizen, who was practicing his democratic right, to defend himself before their joke-of-a-court.
Thanks to Levant's video postings of his interrogation on YouTube, which have received about half a million hits, his case has received considerable media attention. The absurdity of this kangaroo court becomes clear when his unabashed interrogator has the audacity to question him on his political motives in publishing the cartoons, to which he unapologetically answers "whatever you find offensive".
Maybe if this was an isolated event it would seem like an absurdly embarrassing, but insignificant episode in Canada's proud history of personal liberty. However, the state has also inserted itself between another high-profile Canadian journalist, Mark Steyn, and the public, due to his publication in MacLean's Magazine titled "The Future Belongs to Islam".
He too is scheduled for a court date with the Canadian thought police this summer where he will go before the so-called Canadian Humans Rights Commission. Among these journalists are many other less known figures whose basic right of free speech is being questioned by thuggish state institutions. Many journalists, inside and outside of Canada, are watching the proceedings with disbelief.
Freedom of speech is not negotiable in Canada and it is not the government's right to decide which religion or creed may or may not be insulted or criticized in public.