Jay Currie does it again

This stuff writes itself. If Jay Currie keeps launching these complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they may come to the conclusion that he is making fun of them. And in the process, they may also come to the correct conclusion that they too are an identifiable religious group, practicing the human rights world view, and thus to be protected from the potentially communicated contempt of the Curries of this world, under the Canadian Human Rights Act. At that point, Jay could be in the box... But Jay, with his motto "one damn thing leads to another", is surely himself some kind of identifiably religious person, whom we must protect from contempt, even state contempt, as such...

Jay even admits that he is operating from faith:

Some people have suggested, not unreasonably, that my complaints to the CHRC might not meet the “good faith” test. Should the Commission try this on they will be hit with a libel suit which will make the Warman/Kinsella actions look like chump change.

My complaints are made in entirely good faith and within the letter of the absurd law which is s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Any suggestion to the contrary will be greeted with a writ.

Also: don't miss Edward Michael George's reasonable if mirthful proposal that Mark Steyn lay a complaint against Mark Steyn.