Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial V: Stand and Deliver

Merciful heavens, it’s the last day. Time for final arguments…

Faisal Joseph for the complainants: We’re here to right a terrible wrong. Case involves a complicated intersection of two important values — free speech and the right to be free from discrimination. Neither trumps the other, in his view. Not all speech is afforded the same protection — speech that is not close to the “core value” of free speech is not as well protected. That would be hate speech. Doesn’t advance truth-seeking, because it silences the target group. Doesn’t advance their self-development, etc.

Not offensive speech we’re after, but hate speech. And only on enumerated grounds — so just exposing individual polticians, say, to hatred is okay, but not those groups listed in the code. Two-part test under the code: does the speech itself espouse hatred, and is it likely to cause others to hate.

Going through the case law on Sect. 7.1 of the BC Human Rights code. Factors to take into account: the vulnerability of the target group, the tone of the message, whether it’s presented as opinion or fact, the context, the method of dissemination. Particular case that’s noteworthy: Canadian Jewish Congress vs. North Shore News (ie the “Doug Collins” case.)

Stressing that it’s a two-part test, so free speech is well protected. eg. Speech that is neutral in tone, but might cause someone else to hate, is not caught; ditto speech that is itself hateful, but might not cause others to hate. Catches “only the speech that is appropriately silenced.” Application ensures there will be no — he pauses to do big air-quote — “chilling” effect.

Concedes some speech within a “shaded” area will be suppressed — but will only require authors who are “close to the line” to “think very carefully” about how they say it.

Using “Taylor” definition (from eponymous Supreme Court decision) of hatred and contempt — “extreme ill will,” group presented has having “no redeeming qualities”, “looking down upon” targeted group etc.

Law focuses on effects on targeted group, not the intentions of the author, so as to allow reparations. Test to apply is how a reasonable person would interpret the content, in this time and place, and if informed of its social and historical context: would a reasonable person find it hateful.

9:51 AM Now he’s reviewing the evidence we heard earlier. Ayoub: Steyn’s article claims Muslims in “an underground conspiracy to take over the world.” Rippin: shows them having a single, unchanging identity. Habib: Muslims told they don’t fit in, they’re not westerners, they’re foreigners. Experts agree that article makes no distinction between fringe elements in Muslim world and ordinary Muslims. Presented as a global, homogeneous group, with no identity outside religious belief.

Steyn article uses “subtle, seemingly intellectual arguments” rather than “overtly racist” speech. But that’s not going to save him — it’s “venom clothed in the language of reason.” Again citing the “obligatory of courses” passage against him. Nice work: An explicit disavowal of generalizations is rather evidence of generalizations.

Article uses sensationalist, fear-mongering tone, warns of dire events, “bloody” takeover. Cover used again: the picture of the little girl, in particular. There’s an obvious contradiction here: Habib said yesterday she looked frightened and vulnerable, playing on stereotypes of women in Muslim life. Joseph says she looks ominous and threatening, like something from “a horror movie.” Well, which is it?

Going through the “hallmarks of hate,” with passages from Steyn to support. First, targeted group is presented as taking over society, depriving others of safety, comfort etc. Second, group is presented as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable. Third, targeted group is presented as dangerous and violent by nature. In addition, Muslims are dehumanized by comparison to insects — true, Steyn was quoting a radical imam at the time, but that just shows how he uses radical fringe to tar the rest.

Also, he uses sarcasm.

10:10 AM Having convicted Steyn of hatred in the first part, we’re on to the second part of the “two-part” test. That would be the infamous Belgian/American blog posts.

Cites Expert witness Hirji to show that racism is prevalent in the media, and also in the article. Examples: Distortion of jihad. Claim that Islam oppresses women. Claim that Islam is antiquated.

Article tries to couch its hatred of Muslims in “true” anecdotes to make generalized statements. Article uses a number of statistical facts, but then jumps from these to negative generalizations about Islam. Uses radical imams and Col Khadafy as representative figures for the entire Muslim community. Does not provide contextual details that would lessen impact. Incomplete or misleading anecdotes.

Besides, he’s talking about Muslims in Europe, not in Canada.

Hatefulness of article was never mitigated by published debate, “where you have both sides coming and the public can make up their own mind.” But “Maclean’s doesn’t want it.” Why? A stand-alone article without any response. (Leaving aside the 27 letters to the editor.) “You can’t have a debate with only one side of the story.”

Whoops, now he’s going through the letters to the editor. Some are pro-Steyn, or rather pro-hate. By his count, 10 are critical of Steyn — of which several were part of a letter-writing campaign on the part of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Canada). Maclean’s note of this fact is entered as evidence of malfeasance. But anyway, letters to the editor don’t count.

10:29 AM Talking about the power of the media to shape opinion. Ordinary citizen has only letters to the editor “if they’re lucky.”

Quoting from previous human rights tribunal rulings on how media cannot be exempted from its writ. Indeed, the more mainstream and respectable they are, the more essential it is that they be included, because people might be more inclined to believe racist propaganda when it appears there.

Evidence of actual increase in hate as result of article is unnecessary under law, but you have plenty of it before you: the blog posts. Cites the Western Standard blog, among others, as “directly related” to Steyn article. “There has never been a case in this country that has such clear concise evidence, ever. There will never be a more demonstrable case.” Cites comments calling for Muslims to be killed en masse, deported.

Now quoting Martin Luther King Jr. as he sums up.

Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece, or to publish the tribunal’s decision finding it was promoting hatred.

We’re breaking now, with final arguments from the Maclean’s side to come…

11:08 AM Back in session, probably for the last time…

McConchie rises for the respondents… “The Steyn article does not convey hatred or contempt or otherwise contravene Sect. 7.1 (b) of the human rights code.”

And sits down.

Kidding! But part of me wishes…

Asking the tribunal to dismiss both Elmasry and Habib complaints. Pointing out that students, Elmasry, Joseph et al have all travelled from Ontario to have case heard in BC — ie “forum-shopping.” This reflects the students “political enthusiasm” to obtain (quoting their retainer letter to the experts) “a successful outcome in this complaint (that) could provide the impetus for prohibiting disciriminatory publications in other provinces.”

Reminding the tribuanl of all the traditional defences that are not available to us: fair comment, innocent intent, good faith, truth.

If this were an ordinary court proceeding, Maclean’s would be seeking an order that the complainants pay costs. But as a show of respect “to this tribunal … and the Muslim community,” we are not.

Quoting from their experts. Ayoub: “I have not read Mr. Steyn before. I am interested in the way he writes because it’s interesting… It’s a very entertaining style he has.” Rippin: was unaware of article until the Ontario students brought it to his attention — so it did not make “much of a ripple” in discussion online, contrary to the “tsunami” presented by the complainants. “The blog world is never quiet. It never sleeps. Its’s 24/7, 365, and there are a lot of strange people out there. And this article did not stir them to life.”

Elmasry did not bother to appear, notwithstanding his intent to represent all Muslims in BC — “must have slipped down his list of priorities.” Clearly does not engage his interest.

Notes that Awan said on Mike Duffy LIve that Macleans, Steyn “can publish any articles they like.” They just want the right to reply.

Putting all these together, what is going on here? “These complaints are not about hate speech at all. These complaints seek a fundamental change in speech regulation by human rights authorities which would empower tribunals across the country to force magazines and newspapers to publish replies at equal length” to articles that some group disagrees with — ie a statutory right of reply.

This is not a new movement. There were attempts to legislate such things in the past. They’re contrary to the constitution, and this tribunal is not the place to try to invent such a doctrine.

Notes that this is about speech that does not fall under the criminal code’s proscription. Availability of human rights code route means “that anyone can be dragged into costly hearings without the protection afforded under criminal law.”

“A hard shove down the slippery slope to censorship.” Must be met “with unflagging resistance form everyone who values freedom in a democratic society.”

11:30 AM Now going through the relevant provision of BC human rights code: anything that “is likely to” expose members of identifiable group to hatred or contempt. Based on Sect. 13.1 of federal human rights code. Invoking the Supreme Court’s Taylor ruling — both sides agree on this — with its definition of hatred: “extreme ill will and an emotion that allows for no redeeming qualities” in the person at whom it is directed. Also involves “unusually strong and deeply-felt emotions of detestation, calumny etc.” Intent was clear in definition — that definition was meant to be reserved for only the most extreme cases, and not to chill expressive activity.

Must be an objective test of whether hatred present — central question of law. Citing case law: It’s not how particular individuals understand a message that qualifies it as hate speech — must use an objective approach, ie the reasonable person standard.

Collins decision (actually decisions — there were two cases) are “of uncertain value.” Made clear in the text of these decisions that tribunal considers itself an administrative tribunal and and as such is not bound by previous decisions, ie precedent does not have the same weight as in regular courts. So Maclean’s suggests tribunal not emulate approach followed in those decisions, which applied “unnecessarily complicated” tests In balancing free speech against other concerns.

Have to follow the objective test. Maclean’s suggests “reasonable person” would not understand Steyn piece as exposing Elmasry and Habib to hatred on account of their religion. Tribunal must ignore Awan’s subjective testimony about the meaning he attributed to the piece — it’s “merely background narrative.” Ditto Habib — his subjective reaction cannot be considered.

Objective test also means the blog posts are irrelevant. Nothing more than a subjective assessment of meaning. No guarantee that it even reflects the poster’s sincere belief. Might be a mischievous agent provocateur stirring up trouble for the website (cf Richard Warman, passim.) No reason to hold Maclean’s accountable for whatever “deranged, idiotic, wacko or psychopathic” posts appear on blogs, whether originating in BC, or the States, or Belgium.

No weight should be attached to the Buffy expert, “instructor” Hirji. “Her testimony amounts to what is known in legal circles as ‘special pleading.’”

As for Dr. Rippin: he described an ancient tradition of fundamentalist Islam, strict and unchanging, which goes on today, of which Osama bin Laden is a part. Reminding the tribunal of Rippin’s writings on Ibn Baaz, and his role in reviving and promoting Wahabbism in the 20th century. Rippin acknowledged under cross-examination that Islam includes a wide range of views, from very liberal to very conservative. That there exists an authoritarian, violent strand that promotes submitting individual lives to wide-ranging control by the state.

Dr. Ayoub was asked about Osama bin Laden’s statements, and agreed they should be cause for concern. “If there is any evidence of incitement to violence by anyone at this hearing, it’s in the words of Osama bin Laden.” And yet no one proposes to ban the book in which these words are found.

Whatever happened between the students and Maclean’s at the March 30 meeting, it’s not relevant to a determination of whether Sect 7.1 was infringed. Nor does Maclean’s refusal to print a reply constitute a violation. There’s nothing in Sect 7.1 about any of this.

So the relief sought is unwarranted by a fair reading of Sect 7. “This request is little more than an inappropriate attempt to have this tribunal rewrite Sect 7.1 (b).” Not to mention: Maclean’s is a national publication. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to order anyone to do anything outside BC.

Now he’s handing off to Porter….

Porter: There is an element of balancing of Charter values that is required. You are obliged to weighthe Charter values of freedom of expression when evaluating serious journalism, “the most essential of all daily spiritual foods.”

“Here it is clear that this work does not deserve such a smear as hate speech.”

“What madness would prevail if we could not argue as journalists that what Khadafy said was germane or significant.” (What he said was: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”)

The complainants say that Steyn’s use of the word “obligatory” was sarcastic. I don’t know that at all. “Call this hate speech? What on earth have we come to?” Beware.

“When we are reduced to having an expert on Bollywood, mulling and sifting through the work, prospecting for prejudice, this surely cries out to society, ‘this is ridiculous.’”

These last five days have been about Meaclean’s vital detailed opinion. “This is what journalism does for liberty.” It’s part of “the essential trade of journalism — argument, fierece argument, dissent, contrariness — the very ‘tocsin of liberty.’” He’s quoting JFK there, and, well, imitating his accent.

Against the argument that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre: “Oh yes you can — you must, if in your considered view there is a fire. In that case there is a duty to cry fire.” And he’s done.

12:04 PM We’re hearing, last, from the intervenors: first, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, then a joint submission from the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists. I’m going to go with the written texts here, if you don’t mind…

CODA: There will be no more liveblogging. As I left the courtroom for the lunch break, i was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom. So had I. Broadcasting, I said? I didn’t have a microphone, or a camera.

No, he explained: but liveblogging counts as broadcasting. It’s not the computer that’s the problem. You can type away on it all you want. If you step outside to send it, that’s okay, too. But if you send text from within the courtroom, that’s broadcasting.

Anyway, I gave him my solemn word that I would do no more broadcasting. What with the hearings being almost over and all. It seemed a fitting way to put a cap on the week.

Documents associated with the Maclean’s hearing—updated as we receive them:

  • Written submissions of the Canadian Association of Journalists and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Written submission of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • (new June 24) The complainants’ response to the CAJ, BCCLA and CCLA submissions
  • Outline of Maclean’s closing submissions
  • Closing arguments from Faisal Joseph, the lawyer representing the complainants
  • Statement by Julian Porter, Q.C.
  • (new June 23) Written submission by the Canadian Arab Federation as an intervenor
  • (new June 23) Maclean’s response to the CAF’s submission



Browse

Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial V: Stand and Deliver

  1. First!

  2. So who thinks the tribunal will keep their perfect conviction record going?

  3. First!

  4. Woo hoo! More comedy!

  5. Eighth!

  6. Final arguments today!

    Predictions, anyone?

  7. Heh! Well, I think Macleans will get convicted. Then they will appeal. And get a favorable decision.

  8. The Roo court, sensing a Canadian backlash, will vote to preserve their kingdom, and will not preserve their 100% conviction rate.

  9. Steyn suggested that the best option is to throw out the case while similtaneously ruling that he is a very bad person.

  10. This tribunal doesn’t have 100% conviction rate although they do have some odd rulings. Like the one that I posted at the end of yesterday.

  11. …better still, I think the immense stink will finally focus Canadian politicians on the need to tighly regulate (or, better still, dismantle) these embarrassing, amateur, quasi-legal Courts of Star Chamber, which have no place whatsoever in a robust, functioning, democratic free society.

    “Right?”, he inquired, hopefully.

  12. I’m torn: this blog has been a source of entertainment for hours, however my productivity levels have fallen dramatically. I really don’t want this to end, but I feel sorry for Coyne. This is becoming sadistic.

  13. Just something to remember: 64 years ago today Canadian and other allied troops stormed the beaches of France to begin the final takedown of the totalitarian Nazi regime. Those Canadian, British,American, Polish and French soldiers fought and died to protect us and to preserve the freedoms that characterize democracy.

    Think of that as we behold this Tribunal, and think of how far we have fallen. Have we betrayed the ideals who went ashore on 6 June 1944?

    During WW I John McCrae wrote “If ye break faith with us who die/We shall not sleep/Though poppies grow/In Flanders Fields.”

    Are those poor guys spinning in their graves?

  14. Yeah, they must be aware of how closely the public is watching this. It would be suicide to find against Maclean’s.

    You have to admit, though, that these funky politicised illegitimate inquisition-type trials are a lot more interesting than the real thing.

  15. Of course there will be a conviction. Given the state of the law, the Tribunal will have no other choice. See my much more extensive comments on http://www.ezralevant.com when they come out for a complete explanation.

    In a similar vein, has anyone seen the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission panel in Lund v. Boissoin? I reviewed this May 30, 2008 decision on http://www.ezralevant.com. It’s a doozy. Maclean’s better watch out. They might be forced to write an official letter of apology to Mr. Elmasry and his buddies.

  16. Canadian Human Rights Commission has the 100% Conviction rate on section 13 offences.

  17. This is a political panel and they will make a political decision. I believe that they agree with the complainant. Yet at the same time, do they want to risk self-preservation by taking on such a mainstream institution? I predict that the complaint will be dismissed.

  18. Does anyone know the name of the article that Lewis Lapham wrote back in 2006 on this very issue? Levant references it in one of his postings today.

  19. They will acquit, in order to save their skins and give the appearance of reasonable-ness.

    The damage to Macleans is already done. In these cases, the process is the punishment. Maclean’s is out their legal fees, and being acquitted would mean no opportunity to appeal to a real court.

    If Maclean’s is acquitted, do they have legal recourse to go after Elmasry, Awan, etc. for costs?

  20. Indeed, Blaise.

    D-Day greetings to Canada, from some guy in Texas (me)

  21. I’d like to put on record a “Thank you” to Terek Fatah for joining the comments the past couple of days. Hearing from a bona fide moderate Muslim is invaluable in a situation like this.

  22. The rulings in favor of all the questionable “evidence” that this tribunal has allowed seems to me at least to only project down a path of conviction for Macleans.

  23. You have to remember, H,R,Cs cannot resist convicting anyone with a Conservative bent. Regardless of weather or not it hurts their kingdom.And because of that arrogance it will eventually destroy them.

  24. Those who missed Tareq Fatah on Michael Corens show last night with Imam Steve Rockwell missed a real doozey.

  25. Logging in from work today, as long as the firewalls let me. :) I expect to get almost nothing done. This is too interesting to look away from….kind of like a bad auto accident.

  26. If it is hate speech they are after, why not try to use section 319 of the criminal code…

    Oh right, three of the four defences provided there would exonerate Macleans even if what Steyn had written was in fact hateful.

    1) Truth

    2) A comment on a any religious topic, or a comment based on regilious belief

    3) public interest

  27. The tribunalists will uphold their conviction rate.

    Assuing they are thinking this way,

    1) If the pull in their horns they create the “case law” they claim they are creating and provide an enormous grounds for appeal on any subsequent conviction. As well, they would be directly contradicting OHRC, who made their statement for a reason….for the BCHRT and others to reference. So they end up with reduced power by their own hands and create confusion in “Human Rights Law” in Canada, at least more confusion than existed before.

    2) If they convict they preserve power and they force the SC to pin back their ears, assuming the court would….you live to fight another battle and preserve your power and mandate in the meantime.

    Macleans is screwed, and only Ted Rogers backing of the Macleans insurgency is what will drive this on.

  28. Faisal Joseph “free speech and the right to be free from discrimination” Where does reverse discrimination fit into this. Do I have the right to be free from reverse discrimination? If so there will be lots of filings to human rights tribunals. I seems reverse discrimination has become exceptable maybe we were wrong.

  29. I’ve been following the proceedings here as well, and just thought I’d make one intervention, as follows:

    1. I don’t support hate speech laws or the suppression of free speech by courts or human rights commissions.

    2. I think human rights commissions have a legitimate role to play on actual incidents involving harm done to individuals through discrimination and bigotry.

    3. I think Steyn is an anti-Muslim bigot.

    4. I think most of the people supporting him are anti-Muslim bigots masquerading as free speech advocates.

    That’s about all I want to say on this.

    My intent is to indicate — for the record — that the Steyn devotees here do not represent my views, or far as I can tell, the views of most Canadians, who are overwhelmingly tolerant people.

    - JV

  30. I suspect MacLeans will win, although the tribunal might make some pointed comments about what they choose to publish.

    If they lose, they will likely also lose on appeal.

  31. Just Visiting:

    Your Virtuous Defense of free speech causes my eyes to mist up in admiration. Conversly, my cynical defense of free speech makes me feel deeply ashamed.

    Thanks for straightening me out.

  32. “Going through the case law on Sect. 7.1 of the BC Human Rights code. Factors to take into account: the vulnerability of the target group, the tone of the message, whether it’s presented as opinion or fact, the context, the method of dissemination. Particular case that’s noteworth: Canadian Jewish Congress vs. North Shore News (the Doug Collins case.)”

    Facts are truth. But truth is no defence, right? So, conversely, if truth is irrelevant,the complainant has no grounds for his ‘truth’ doesn’t count either!

    What a BIG STINKIN FARCICAL boondoggle this all is.

  33. JV, thank you, my sentiments exactly. It can’t be said enough times: it is most important to protect free speech in instances where you vehemently disagree with what the sayer is saying.

  34. I think people who throw around terms like “bigots” are, in fact, fascists who would rejoice in a victory for the complainants.

  35. …time for a little what if.

    If the Court of ‘Roos rules that the complainants insufficiently “proved” their case and dismisses it (or for some other reason dismisses it), what are the ramifications. At least they cannot dismiss as did the ON HRC – that it was not within their mandate.

    Surely Macleans would be entitled to total costs (which by now must be considerable)

    The next person/group who takes a free speech issue before any HRC panel would give considerable thought as to what happens if they don’t succeed. Up to now – no thought has to be given because the ‘Roos have virtually always “convicted”. This would be a very good thing and the effect would be immediate – few if any frivolous complaints would be filed.

    Macleans would not have to incur the costs of appealing along with having a very good shot at winning and be entitled to a much greater award than they are now. If the complainants want to roll the dice, it becomes their choice. This process will take considerable time and in the meantime -the ‘Roo Courts keep operating as usual. This is not a good thing.

    I’m not at all sure that I would want to see this case going before the SCC Canada. A loss here would so embellish the HRCs that change may well be unlikely, ever.

    A dismissal here would put the politicians in a position where they cannot hide behind – oh, gee we can’t do anything right now until the SCC tells us what to do. This would be a good thing.

    After this laughable inquisition process, what was presented here, and given the wording of the complaint – how can the “Roos possibly find in favor of the complainants?

  36. Whether the complaint is upheld or dismissed, the fact will remain that the power to hold hearings like this is an affront to Human Rights. It was put very succinctly by the Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, University of B.C., William Nichols, in a letter to the National Post earlier this week, when he wrote -

    “It is fundamentally unjust that a body not bound, as is a court of justice, by the presumption innocence and the rules of evidence should like a court, have the power to inflict penalties.”

    Those words highlight how obscene it is that bodies which are in the business of suppressing Canadians’ Human Rights should have the expression “Human Rights” as part of their title.

  37. Just Visiting:

    Im taking you to OHRC for you bigoted remarks about me.

  38. comment by SK on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm:

    I’d like to put on record a “Thank you” to Terek Fatah for joining the comments the past couple of days. Hearing from a bona fide moderate Muslim is invaluable in a situation like this.

    ******

    Well said, SK — and I’d like to add MuslimSteynfan too.

  39. To all bloggers of similar elk:

    Pls do a spell check before posting. Failure to do so may damage our crudibility.

  40. Herbert Thornton: couldn’t agree more! Intelligent people, Muslim or not, realize that.

    Mr. Tarek Fatah, who disagrees with what Steyn wrote, defends Steyn’s right to say it. Because if we don’t have free speech or freedom of the press, then we aren’t truly FREE!

  41. JV – just because someone supports Steyn’s right to free speech doesn’t, ipso facto, make him an anti-Muslim bigot.
    One doesn’t have to agree with his views in order to support his right to espouse them.
    I happen to hate alcoholism, but have a couple of great friends who are alcoholics. Does that make me an anti-alcoholic bigot?
    Isn’t logic a wonderful thing?

  42. JV,

    You’re paying alot of lip service to free speach. The message you truly wanted to convey is that Steyn is a bigot and so are his supporters. I suppose actually making your case is too much to ask since this is a blog and glib comments are the norm.

  43. To quote a song: “Freedom isn’t Free, It costs folks like you and me”

  44. I’ve never taken from any of Steyn’s writings that Muslims represent “an underground conspiracy to take over the world.” It is the Western world that has always seemed top me to be Steyn’s focus, and his criticisms are nopt chiefly that Muslims reproduce and champion their culture too much, but rather that the Western world in general — and Western Europe, specifically — reproduces too little and champions its own culture barely at all. That’s the message I’ve taken away from Steyn!

  45. If by some weird quirk of fate the bouncing roos do not convict Macleans, then if I were Macleans I would sue Elmo and his sock puppet’s for the cost of Macleans legal fees and time.

  46. AC wrote,

    “Nice work: An explicit disavowal of generalizations is rather evidence of generalizations.”

    Yes Winston, your claims of innocence only prove your guilt.

  47. And yet at the same time, anyone in elected office who dares shut down these ‘roo-courts will be portrayed in the media as a rights abusing neo-con….

  48. “Concedes some speech within a “shaded” area will be suppressed — but will only require authors who are “close to the line” to “think very carefully” about how they say it.”

    And, how the rest of the universe may react since you know, it is Steyn’s fault that Free Dominion has some people that go off the deep end.

  49. I’m wondering now why someone would even go to the expense of hiring a real lawyer to represent them at one of these sham trials. I mean how relevant is it to have legal muscle when the roos pay not even the slightest attention to the rule of law and due process.

    It seems the best you could do is bone up on what the law should be and take your own stenographer with you so that after you’ve been found guilty, you can then hire a lawyer to handle your appeal—assuming you want to climb that mountain to the peak.

    The combination of arrogance,cluelessness and basic incompetence from the plaintiffs and the roos should have sent this off the rails well before closing arguments, but this is the new reality when the BCHRC is involved. It’s a scary new world out there, made scarier by the knowledge that it’s been going on for decades now and we’re only waking up to how bad it could be if it’s not stopped here.

  50. Hey, does anyone know if we get the HRC decision today, or just closing arguments? The latter seem to be proceeding apace.

  51. Warren Z, I believe there is a protection clause that prohibits the defendants from seeking any kind of retribution from the plaintiffs. I could be wrong-anybody else read up on that?

  52. Yes JCL this is true….see Warren K’s first mock up of a radio comercial that makes the cheap point that if you defend those who are unpopular you agree with them.

    An argument straight from “Mean Girls” I believe.

  53. Warren Z: yes, I agree! Is that a possibility?

    I’ve been hoping Macleans will lose, so they can defeat the HRT on appeal. But can they sue to recover costs?

  54. Andrew — “Cover used again: the picture of the little girl, in particular. There’s an obvious contradiction here: Habib said yesterday she looked frightened and vulnerable, playing on stereotypes of women in Muslim life. Joseph says she looks ominous and threatening, like something from “a horror movie.” Well, which is it?”

    *******

    It’s logic, in Kangaroo Kountry.

  55. “Also, he uses sarcasm.”

    Th’ unkindest cut of all.

  56. John H: In Canada that would not surprise me. How ever in this case I hope you are wrong.

  57. The HRC will reserve its decision. They know they will likely get appealed and are going to take extra care in how they write it all down. I would expect a written decision in 2 – 6 months.

    My fear is they will acquit Macleans, admonishing it for coming close to the line and menacing Canada’s peacable kingdom in doing so. Cutting the baby in two is more or less what the Chair did in the Knights of Columbus case.

  58. I’m shocked! shocked to learn that Steyn uses sarcasm in his writings. The cad…

  59. Coyne (re: Steyn):
    “Also, he uses sarcasm.” Oh my God, call the police; he uses sarcasm!

    Well, damn, I’m in big trouble.

  60. THere will be no decision today….they actually have to hear the closing arguments….not that this stopped Barbara Hall

  61. If there’s an underlying animus at work here, I suspect it’s the accurate belief by the members of this debased court that Steyn has wit, whereas they have none.

  62. “he uses sarcasm” Did FJ really say that? If he did he is a bigger tool than I thought, I will assue that this is AC being witty. Nobody can be that big a crybaby.

  63. <>

    Doesn’t the “of course” paragraph deflect this?

    Also, if “core value of free speech” doesn’t cover speech related to governance, what does it mean? Isn’t that Steyn’s purpose – to discuss what the future is likely to look like, and what Canadian (and western European) society should do about it?

  64. “Again citing the “obligatory of courses” passage against him. Nice work: An explicit disavowal of generalizations is rather evidence of generalizations.”

    SHOULDA SAID “OF COURSE” IN ALL CAPS!

    That always works

  65. I’m siding with David A on this – the HRC may be venal, but they aren’t stupid and they know perfectly well that with the legal talent which MacLeans has on board, they’ll face an appeal if they convict – and they know, being lawyers, what the SC will do to them if (when?) it gets that far.
    The sad thing is, if the BCHRC acquits, it leaves MacLeans with no avenue to pursue this. At that point, Canadians will have to depend on their pols to deal with this and, to refer to an earlier comment, anyone seen toying with the HRCs will be seen as a neo-con, freedom hating, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
    Hey, isn’t that what the left thinks of Harper and the conservatives now?

  66. Does anybody remember that Monty Python skit about the Dinsdale brothers? In that skit the Dinsdales used sarcasm as a weapon too. Only there it was a joke.

  67. “Doest not provide contextual details that would lessen impact. Incomplete or misleading anecdotes.”

    He doesn’t have to; it’s his bloody opinion.

  68. Sarcasm? Reminds me of this old Monty Python sketch about the Dinsdale criminal gang in london:
    Vercotti, Doug (takes a drink) “I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Doug. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Doug. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Doug.”
    Interviewer: “What did he do?”
    Vercotti: “He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.”

  69. Look guys, bottom line, don’t ever write anything about Islam. There are 6 prisms through which to view it and therefore you will be guilty of a crime.

  70. Well. After perusing all this,I’m puzzled as to
    who is more worthy of contempt… the silliness
    of navel-gazing HRCs, poor befuddled paranoid
    Muslims who take a clown like Steyn seriously,
    or the Whyte Post/MacLeans bitter boys who love
    this crap. What to do? What to do?

    As my Hiberian grandma used to say – “bad ‘cess
    t’ye”

  71. Re: “You can’t have a debate with only one side of the story.”

    You also can’t have a debate, Faisal, when the other side is too chicken to show up.

  72. Dear ‘Just Living,’

    Try living a full and free life instead of hiding behind a cyber-burka and a name that tells all, viz., Just Living.

    To label all people on this forum as ‘bigots,’ is not surprising as it is the only tool employed by Islamists hell-bent on upholding the jihadi doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada.

    I know it is difficult, but is it possible that the only people contributing to Islamophobia in Canada are the mulla-elmasry duo?

    What did these twits achieve other than to embarrass all Muslim Canadians, who appear to held hostage by the blackmail of community patriotism?

    Last night one of these imams came on the Michael Coren Show to discuss polygamy and made such an ass of himself, waving the Quran at the host, mocking Christianity on a Christian TV station and then claiming there was Islamophobia in this country! When I defended my faith by explaining that polygamy was a medieval Bedouin tradition meant to take care of war widows, the Imam started reading from the Quran, screaming, “My religion allows me to marry four wives…Tarek Fatah knows nothing about Islam,” then he sneered at me with ugly facial gestures, waving hands and feminine accent, “Tarek Fatah is modern … moddderrrnnn Muslim…He is not a Muslim,” as if modernity itself was his enemy!

    Dear ‘Just Living’, start living and while you are at it, if you are looking for bigots, chances are you will find them in Elmasry’s mosque or Dr. Habib’s clinic, definitely not on this Macleans forum. Sarcasm? May be. Anger? Yes and justifiably so. Islamophiobia? Not a shred of it in five days of discussion.

    Dear ‘Just Living,’ the notion that the US or Canada are anti-Muslim does not withstand scrutiny. The number one selling author in both countries for over two years is a Muslim: Dr. Khalid Hossieni whose novel ‘Kite Runner’ has made so many Canucks shed tears on Go Trains and in their solitudes as they embraced the young poor boys of Kabul as their very own family. There is more.

    The most sold poet in all of North America is the medieval Muslim poet Rumi. Why would Americans choose to read Maulana Rumi if they hate Muslims?

    The most popular sportsman in US for decades is Muhammad Ali Clay. This mischievous boxer who titillated and entertained all of us with his sly smile and political wit. And who still stings like butterfly and floats like a bee! If Americans and the US hate Muslims, why do they love Muhammad Ali, Rumi and read the Kite Runner?

    Why does CNN give Ali Velshi so much airtime prominence if it is anti-Muslim? Why, if the West hates Islam, is Farid Zakaria the editor of Newsweek magazine and why is permitted to host his own show on PBS and CNN?

    Right in the heart of Vancouver where the boy-band is spewing hate against Canada and its free press, lives Senator Mobina Jaffer. Does her appointment to the senate reflect an anti-Muslim bias in the West or Canada? How doe we end up electing a young Muslim lawyer from Ottawa Centre if Canaucks are anti-Islam? And if your anger is directed at the Conservative flank of Canadian political spectrum, why them would the Reform Party, then the Alliance and later the Conservatives elect Rahim Jaffer as an MP since 1993. Or do you discount him to be a good Muslim simply because he is smart, good looking, dates a lovely MP and wears stylish suits, and heavens forbid, has sense of humour that borders impish naughtiness, a trait that would help such cry babies as Khurrum Awan and Faisal ‘Joseph’ to grow up and stop sucking on their thumbs as they utter drivel.

    Dear ‘Just Living,’ please start living.

  73. Right on, TerryG.

    Can you imagine trying to write anything while keeping fixed in your mind all the rules the plaintiffs accuse Steyn of violating? What you’d end up with would be incoherent and insensible and unreadable, which is probably the point.

    An Orwellian nightmare where clear honest thought is impossible.

  74. Let’s face it, Canada is no a country where freedom of speech and personal liberty rule how society conducts itself the BC HRC and some of it’s past rulings prove this.

    Steyn and MacLean’s will be found guilty, full stop, but will win on appeal but the dangerous precedent will have been set. Any group that has a beef with the media will jurisdiction shop, just like the CIC did in this case and will continue to do so until they find a HRC that gives them the findings they want to hear. All the while our freedoms will diminish just that little bit more. And the truly sad part of all of this is most Canadians just couldn’t care less. Oh Canada …..

  75. On the 64th anniversary of Canada’s great sacrifice for the Freedom of the West, it continues the surrender of it’s freedom.

  76. So Faisal is in fact arguing for an accompanying negative piece by Steyn on every single favourable piece published about moslems? For balance.

  77. Right on, Mr. Fatah! Good to read you on here once again.

  78. “where you have both sides coming and the public can make up their own mind.”

    I would say the public has made it up it’s mind thats why you went to the court of LaLa land.

  79. Am I my brother’s keeper? In other word’s if a commenter were to post a comment and another commenter decided to comment on the original comment, would that commenter’s comment be the original commenter’s responsibility? Plus any subsequent comment’s posted by other commenter’s though not necessarily on the original comment still be the responsibility of the original commenter? Elmo and his sock puppet’s seem to think so. But of coarse I am just posting a comment.

  80. Keep in mind that there is a double attack team at Canada’s magazine of record:

    Steyn: High school drop-out with a mean kick in verbal judo.

    Amiel: she has more shoes than brains.

    The extravagant wisdom of these people knows no bounds.

    A&S, please enlighten us on the 1400-year old “monolithic” civilization that gave us the Taj Mahal, Jalaludin Rumi, clocks and coffee, soap and public baths, advances in medicine from pills to the first surgical tools, astronomy, algebra and architecture and, more recently, a form of interest-free finance that has rescued companies as diverse as Aston Martin to Bear Stearns.

  81. Re: Western Standard. “Cites comments calling for Muslims to be killed, deported.” How does he know that one article caused those opinions? What if those opinions have existed since 9/11? Is that Macleans fault?

  82. Short segment on CBC I on this trial morning – may be rebroadcast tonight. I must say that in my opinion Khurrum Awan’s comment were intemperate at best. Andrew Coyne followed as a guest; it seems to me that his thoughtful dissertation did not have as great an impact simply because of the measured delivery.

  83. “Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece. or to publish the tribunal’s decision finding it was promoting hatred.”

    Now that’s the balance he’s looking for eh?

  84. “Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece.”

    Well, if we could all have what we want, I’d be blond with a big bosom.

  85. Well I wrote to my MP, Rob Nicholson and Stephen Harper last night expressing my concern and telling them in no uncertain terms that if they’re interested in my vote they better start showing some backbone.

    I bet if all the people commenting here did the same it would have an effect

  86. ‘Hatefulness of article was never mitigated by published debate, “where you have both sides coming and the public can make up their own mind.” But “Maclean’s doesn’t want it.” Why? A stand-alone article without any response. (Leaving aside the 27 letters to the editor.) “You can’t have a debate with only one side of the story.” ‘

    Also: ‘Does not provide contextual details that would lessen impact. Incomplete or misleading anecdotes.’

    The idea that every opinion article must deploy opposing arguments? If I say, “The world is round,” do I immediately need to find quotes from Flat Earthers? And who died and made the Flat Earthers the only opposing argument that should be represented? What about the people who think the world is round, but that we’re on the inside of it? Or those who believe it rides on the back of a giant tortoise? Or how about those who believe it’s all a dream within a dream?

    It’s like the Puppets want everyone who says anything about any topic touching Islam, to make the Puppets’ arguments for them. “I want to write about how I find X and Y to be frustrating. But, wait! What do the Puppets say? Better throw that in, just to keep out of debtors’ prison after the HRC is done with me.”

  87. Hon. Rob Nicholson
    Minister of Justice
    House of Commons
    Ottawa Ontario Canada
    K1A 0H8

    June 6 2008

    Dear sir:

    Thank you for letter of May 30 in reply to my correspondence about the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    Your letter states, “Canada’s record on human rights is second to none: it is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.” No. The various actions that have been brought against Maclean’s magazine and the Western Standard are taxpayer-sponsored attacks against the right to free speech. The motivation of those bringing the actions is not in question here. What is relevant is that these actions can be brought at all.

    Your letter cites Mr. Dykstra’s motion to bring section 13 of the CHRA before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This will achieve nothing. For those who hate free speech it is negligible. For those who support free speech, it is so ineffectual as to be almost insulting. This is not a message from your government that its heart is in the right place but perhaps an indication that it believes that a noisy minority can be managed.

    Sir, if your government supports free speech and opposes the book-burners, step forward, say so and propose your remedies. If, on the other hand, you are content with injustice at home and embarrassment abroad, and believe that the state should prohibit and prosecute speech that violates no provision of the Criminal Code, then please do not ask Canadians to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.

    Regards

  88. sanwin: You will get a form letter from the PMO and nothing from Nicholson.

  89. Now the mystery.

    Do you sum up your side? Doesn’t it lend legitimacy to the charges and the tribunal? Or do you just say: “You go ahead and do what you are going to do. We will seek redress in a Real Court.”

  90. Daiwoo – oh so it’s a civilisation today! It was a race yesterday.

  91. I wrote a letter to the PM (CC’d it to the Justice Minister, my MP, the opposition, etc.) on April 4, 2008.

    I finally got a reply from Nicholson on June 5, 2008. So, don’t get in a hurry to hear from anybody. But keep writing (and include the opposition) about this issue – they’re beginning to listen. I’m going to keep up my letter writing.

    And I hope Mr. Fatah and other Muslim Canadians who feel like he does on this issue will write to the government as well.

  92. Rich,

    It must really burn you up that, to the Saudis, it seems like they got the word of God and then the wealth of God.

  93. Dawood v. Goliath Is it Islamiphbia to fear Sharia Law? How are Women right progress in the Middle East? Can you live in the Middle East and speak out for oppressed groups without fear?

  94. el Ricardo the smooth man – it sounds like you got the same form letter from Nicholson I did. I like your response; I may borrow a couple of your points when I reply to him as well. Thanks.

  95. Dawood,

    Are you only looking for acknowledgement that a society where there a pre dominance of Islam did some interesting things….Sure….but I dont think anyone was ever disputing that.

    But you are missing the point of the criticism going on of this trial/hearing/inquisition. It isnt about whether Islam is right or wrong, it is about an abuse of process whereby someone should be allowed to make fair comment.

    I am sure you are proud of the many stories you have been told about the greatness of your religon, and thats as it should be. But guess what, not everyone will agree with you and you have to accept that.

    Steyn used facts and quotes and then dolloped on some interpretation. Its called an essay! They have been used in lots of societies for centuries, probably even some of the ones you hold near and dear to your heart.

    I think we have all learned that free inquiry and comment are the best ways to ensure a society stays in balance. This is the objection, I dont care if your magical being or the magical being in Christianity or Wicca are the right ones, I will find out in due time.

    What I do care about is when belief in a magical being is political….that matters to everyone. So criticism of a magical being is no differne than criticism of some other dearly held belief…..we have ways to do it, and quite frankly, I dont think Steyn crossed the line. Not because I agree with him but because it doesnt even remotely come close to incitment of hatred.

    You are looking in the wrong place for approval or to boost your ego or reinforce your self esteem. Those are all your business not the state’s.

  96. Check out Ezra’s new posting. He is promising a carnival during his trial.

  97. I enjoy reading the insightful comments of Mr Fatah

    IMHO, modern society should let ideas compete. Express your ideas. If your ideas are repugnent, you shall be marginalized and ignored

    Canada is strong enough even as a young country to rise above true bigotry and idiocy.

  98. On New Year’s Eve last year I posted this. It was a summary of my hopes & dreams for Canada in 2008. Or put another way, it was a list of everything that I feel is drastically wrong with this country.

    Reviewing it again, the first 4 of the 7 items have been stepped on this past week by the complainants and by the 3 Roos:
    – Political Correctness
    – Permanent Victims
    – “Human Rights” Violations
    – Playing the Race Card

    These individuals do not represent my vision for a healthy, proud, and just Canada. Yet they go to sleep each night thinking that they represent the very best of Canada. Sad.

  99. And – if convicted – will the Macleans team pump their fists in the air and yell “Yesssssss!!!”

    :-)

  100. Dr. Casbah asks: “Does anyone know the name of the article that Lewis Lapham wrote back in 2006 on this very issue? Levant references it in one of his postings today.”

    In June 2006, the cover story of Harper’s magazine was the 12 Danish cartoons that caused such an uproar in the Muslim world. Art Spiegelman analyzed the cartoons (which were all reproduced in glorious colour). The title of the article was “Drawing Blood: Outrageous Cartoons and the Art of Courage.”

    Lewis Lapham, who was the magazine’s editor at the time, commissioned the article.

  101. Erik,

    Possibly, but likely say see you in court sport….thats a REAL court by the way.

  102. You go Ezra! I love a good show.

  103. “Evidence of actual increase in hate as result of article is unnecessary under law”

    Can s1 verify that for me?

  104. Dr. Casbah:

    Sorry, my mistake. The title of Art Spiegelman’s story is “Drawing Blood: Outrageous Cartoons and the Art of Outrage.”

  105. You always sum up your side. If you didn’t, then when you go to appeals, they can easily say “Look, you had the opportunity to say this then. If you had, the ruling may have been different, so we can’t go changing a ruling based on new testimony you want to enter now.”

    I’ve been trying to make sense of this, and to me, the only way to do it is to turn and look at Steyn’s article as if it were written with the great threat being christians instead of Muslims.

    What if Steyn had wrote about the growing threat of Christianity, a religion that tells us man has dominion over the women, that adultery and opening your business on a Sunday is a stoning offence, and pointed to a history of Crusades, inquisitions, and witch-burnings, and notable christians such as McVeigh and Hitler as examples of how violent and global-domination seeking Christians are? Now what if that article was published in a region that was primarily some non-christian religion, so didn’t know the truth?

    I like to think none of us would be so silly as to bring it up to a human rights commission, but quite a few of us would be thinking, “Oh, come on! That’s not a fair portrayal, you shouldn’t print something like that without more of the context that balances it.”

    So no, I don’t think they’re asking that every article have balance or a counter-article, but that those articles that are explicitly negative to something, especially something as broad as a religion, have some context and balance applied as well.

    That said, I think Macleans’ lived up to that fine with the letters to the editor. ANd I don’t see how they can be held responsible for what other people think. If they are, then surely they can be held responsible for people like me who saw the article, and because of it started looking into Islam a little bit — thus increasing my respect of the religion. Either way, I think it’s a wash.

  106. $20 says the tribunal aquits Macleans and finds it guilty, all in the same paragraph. No charges, so no risk of Supreme Court over ruling them, but (as in Ontario) tars Macleans’ reputation with condemnation.

  107. Hey, Mr. Joseph is being quite modest in his demand for a coerced rebuttal only. Prof. Lund got a coerced apology he didn’t even ask for!

    Who knows, maybe Maclean’s will be slapped with an order never to publish anything ever again…

  108. Dawood,

    What part of English dont you get? Steyn explicitly states that not all Muslims are like this? Are you illiterate, blind or just a stubborn ass (thats a donkey, an animal known to be difficult to provide direction to, in case you didnt know), I can’t tell which.

  109. “Maclean’s appeals, but also complies. Why not publish the rebuttal? That’s what, 5 pages in their magazine? They still have another 95 there. Imagine what they could do with that other 95 pages. They could rebut the rebuttal, do a 10 page expose on the CIC, and the BCHRC, and the CHRC.”

    The would probably need to republish Steyn’s story as well.

  110. Dawood v. Goliath how can you defend a process that has these qualities? What happens to the person that can not afford a defense? The process in it’s self is a sentence. There are also on going case on this same matter and this tribunal will rule guilty before they even start. What should happen in those cases.

  111. “Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece, or to publish the tribunal’s decision finding it was promoting hatred. ”

    Sorry , just got to add, what if Macleans is found innocnet. In the interest of truth, will the CIC want Macleans to write an article declaring Muslims to be scaredy-pants, and overly sensitive namby-pambies?

  112. I wish I could write to my MP in support of free speech. But I am only a permanent resident. I can tell you this much: becoming a citizen doesn’t sound so hot right now.

  113. Given the way that these “legal” proceedings have gone, even the most jaded of spectators following this proceeding has to conclude that this case — and by extension the British Columbia Human Rights Commission — has completely jumped the shark in regards to this trial. Oh Canada! That this show trial could see the light of day in one of the oldest Western democracies in existence is simply unbelievable.

  114. “They need to be controlled or provide balance.”

    And where does this stop and to whom does it apply?

    Yes it is simple. Simply frightening.

    Scratch a theocrat find a fascist.

  115. As a US citizen, this has proved fascinating reading over the last week. Of course, we have the same kind of thing here–it’s called Academia.

    “Also, he uses sarcasm!” I remember getting complaints on my teacher evaluations that I used sarcasm in my lectures. Who knows, maybe there’s an anti-sarcasm movement brewing we don’t know about. Soon, there will be legislation, anti-irony lobbyists, trauma support groups, etc.

  116. Dawood,

    Your posts are frightening. “These people need to be controlled…” Oh is THAT all these students are saying?? What’s all the fuss about?

    ‘Alll weee are sayyying
    Is these people need to be controlled so give kangaroo courts a chance’

  117. STEPHEN AND MICK: Dawood is a cynic trying to provoke you into some thoughtcrime or another. He is not interested in debating ideas, just goading anyone foolish enough to respond in kind.

  118. “…or to publish the tribunal’s decision finding it was promoting hatred.”

    In other words, he’s manufacturing a victory regardless of the end result, presuming that the verdict is for the complainant. MacLean’s would report the verdict with its own contemptuous commentary of the same no matter what. No matter what, with this “plan b,” he wins.

  119. Gail,

    You write to your MP all the same.

    They need to know how many people have lined up against this crap.

  120. What a dirty trick, Andrew!!!
    :)

  121. If I understand what has been said, Steyn has added various caveats that “Of Course not all Muslims are like this…” (paraphrasing).

    Doesn’t this mean the sama as “Some Muslims ARE like this…” How is this different than what the Complainants have alleged?

    If there is no difference in what they said, what is this all about?

    Only that Steyn used sarcasm?

  122. Matt Harrington : has one of the best points yet … yes indeed … I can see it all now as we could set up tribunals accross canada and let’s face it folks Rick Mercer and crew would be the first to be prosecuted then bound and gagged and what about the Air Farce – Oh my god think about it and let’s not forget the Parliament as Question Period drips with sarcasm at times – well need I go on?

  123. SK,

    He isnt trying to provoke anything, he is a “true believer” but I do agree he isnt interested in debate, just spewing assertions and nursing his victimhood.

    He should get a therapist or a teddy bear.

  124. And I would also like to thank Terek Fatah and MuslimSteynFan and others for their comments, it has been very interesting and fun reading you all.

  125. the supreme court justices are following a case like this. They are the upholders of the law, the legal system and the constitution. How could they not be apalled at what was happening, by the usurping of everything i would think they hold dear. How could they not want to deal with this ?

  126. Any legal types here? If Maclean’s loses here and this case goes up to appeal, how likely is it that they will get a positive result there? Are you Canadians reasonably confident in your judicial system to get this right?

  127. i wonder if…….

  128. There is a danger in using sarcasm if you’re not a very good writer. It can be unclear what’s sarcasm and what isn’t.

    Given the the bulk of Steyn’s screed was outlining how muslims are a dangerous threat, given how Steyn uses sarcasm to convey his point, it’s very reasonable to assume that his “Of course” exceptions were simply more sarcasm.

  129. SK, our Supreme Court is mostly liberal. We need the Harper government to change the law.

  130. McConchie’s summation is very ineffective so far. He is not making any relevant points. Who cares what the bloody title of the article was in the print version vs. the internet version?

  131. “Anything you say, or any thing you don’t say but we think you really meant to say, can be used against you in the Star Chamber.”

  132. SK the court of public opinion is more important than real court anyway. To quote the Princess of Wales “I want to be the Queen of hearts”

  133. Who cares at this point if the complainants are forum shopping? Everyone knows that and there are no anti-forum shopping provisions in the BC law.

  134. I think, Michael, he’s pointing these out as evidence that Macleans’ was not trying to imply that the growth of the muslim demographic was a bad thing.

  135. Why is Maclean’s not asking for costs “as a show of respect to the Tribunal”? How does not asking for costs demonstrate respect for the Tribunal?

    How does it demonstrate respect for the Muslim community? Is McConchie conceding that the complainants somehow are representative of the Muslim community?

  136. Wow! The respondent’s summation – twenty words or less and then sits down. Fascinating to read the respondent’s approach – thanks for all you have done, Andrew.

    So…. the ball is in the ‘Roos pouch now and we will have to see in due course what the baby looks like.

  137. My Opinion: You’re wrong. If you don’t show up to defend yourself at every opportunity, appeals will shut you down, and you’ll find yourself having to deal with the local constabulary as they impose fines on you.

  138. I just read Ezra Levant’s latest piece. As I posted there, here’s my vision of him in front of the Alberta Kangaroo Court:

  139. comment by T. Thwim on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm:

    “There is a danger in using sarcasm if you’re not a very good writer. It can be unclear what’s sarcasm and what isn’t.”

    That hardly constitutes a “danger” to the writer. If some readers are incapable of detecting sarcasm or humour, that isn’t the writer’s concern.

    It’s not as if an accomplished, prolific, best-selling, sometimes sarcastic author like Steyn is going to be dragged before a….oh wait…never mind. Maybe it is a “danger”?

  140. McConchie’s summation is very ineffective so far. He is not making any relevant points. Who cares what the bloody title of the article was in the print version vs. the internet version?

    This is very relevant, since the BCHRC has already stated they have no authority over the internet. Thus all the blog comments discussing “The Future Belongs to Islam” should be irrelevant, since its is technicially a different article.

  141. Are the roos expected to deliver a verdict today?

  142. Dawood said: “It must really burn you up that, to the Saudis, it seems like they got the word of God and then the wealth of God.”

    Actually D-man, I try to spend as little time as possible “burnt up”. Life is waaay too short.

    Met a lot of very cool and affable Saudis in my time there, as a matter of fact. (Also got some rocks tossed at me for being an Ami, but that’s another story).

    ANY-way, it was fascinating for this dumb-Yank to see how many of the Saudis thought that both their government and all the religous oppression there was a joke. But, living in a nation where freedom of speech is surpressed, they really can’t SAY that. Which is kind of ironic, given this here discussion.

    I recall going to dinner with my crew, one Christmas eve in the Kingdom. The restaurant owner (who was from Pakistan) was a good egg, but he understood that no official celebration of the infidel holiday was allowed. Still, after dinner, he brings me and the boys a bowl of red and green jello, and winks at us. Tres’ cool.

  143. “There is a danger in using sarcasm if you’re not a very good writer.”

    Fortunately for Steyn, he’s an excellent writer. The danger is that humorless pantywaists will attempt to kill free speech.

  144. Whether the supreme court is liberal or not, that is not the issue. It is about the right of liberals to be liberals. It is about the right of conservatives to be conservatives. This is fascism(and i dont use that term loosely)in human rights clothing. I have never written a letter to my MP or been politically active. I have never been as outraged as i am now. Actually wrote a letter to my MP …the honourable Steven Harper. If i am outraged you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of other people are. I think pandoras box has been opened and is not going to go away anytime soon

  145. Mr. Teper, there’s no point attempting to sway or even reason with this tribunal, and no reason for counsel to waste breathe trying. It is, though, important to establish that the tribunal is so careless and so dishonest that it never bothered even to establish the title of the piece on trial.

  146. Two points:

    (a) When they decline to seek costs “…a show of respect “to this tribunal and the Muslim community,” ” isn’t this (i) an admission that the complainats represent the Muslim community and (ii) equating the Tribunal with an adversary party to the proceeding? How does not asking for costs demonstrate respect for the Tribunal? Is it one modicum of work less that they will have to perform…one mental gymnastic they will be spared? Is it to let them get home earlier for the weekend?

    (b) Why isn’t Porter doing the summation?

  147. Reading some of the Sock Puppets comments has hurt my feelings and, I believe, left me as Caucasian Canadian, open to ridicule and hate from the CIC.

    Where do I go to file a Section 13 complaint against them ?

  148. Matt Harrington sez: “Also, he uses sarcasm!” I remember getting complaints on my teacher evaluations that I used sarcasm in my lectures. Who knows, maybe there’s an anti-sarcasm movement brewing . . .”

    Tyrants and would-be tyrants hate sarcasm. They know that the sound of people laughing at them undermines their authority.

  149. In reference to the comment: “There is a danger in using sarcasm if you’re not a very good writer.”

    True, that’s not the issue (plus, as PeteWW points out, Steyn’s a good writer). The issue here is why is this even being brought up in what is purported to be a serious legal tribunal? Are there laws on the books against sarcasm? Is this legally actionable? They might as well add, “We don’t like the way he looks.”

  150. Anyway we look at it the Sock Puppets will enjoy a long career bouncing their ways up the escalator to the heaven that is the Canadian social justice we-know-best justification bureaucracy. It wouldn’t surprise me they’ll be presiding over HRT cases within the decade. It would be almost funny if it we not so tragically sad.

  151. Barry,

    You seem to have hit the nail on the head. I have never even considered sending a letter to my MP before. I’m sure they get multiple letters from “activists” and get sick of seeing the same return address on so many letters. But I think I am about to write my first letter to an MP, in honour of those who died on this very day some 64 years ago.

  152. “All these students are saying is simple: these people need to be controlled or they need to be balanced out.”

    Dawood, your ability to misinterpret the simplest of statements and to then find ‘ism’s in them is one of the best arguments against your views – I’m one of those you refer to as commenting on where you’re from – and I repeat – there was no insult intended in it, despite your seeming to find some.
    You are tiresome, and your attitudes are a threat to freedom of speech and to democracy in this country.

  153. Now there on a roll……and laying out the arguments for acquittal. I still say the Tribunal wont acquit becasue they would be self liiting and they arent interested in that.

    They will roll the dice and see what the legislature or the real court says.

    As Kennedy said, “The Soviets will move forward till they strike steel”

  154. Matt, I was more responding to Blaise’s comment about the “Of course” passages indicating that Steyn was only speaking about some muslims and thus not generalizing.

    It’s very easy, if you’re already upset by what you think Steyn might be saying about you, to see his “Of course not all muslims are like this” as being a sarcastic type of pandering to these very Human Rights commissions.

    As for Steyn being a good writer, well, that’s more a matter of personal taste. Personally, I find his writing too inflammatory and contemptuous of his subjects (regardless of what the subject is) to consider it good writing. To me, he reads like your standard internet troll that managed to find a publisher. Again though, that’s just my opinion.

  155. Oops – this is my last post – shoutout to Muslimsteynfan too!

  156. T. Thwim:
    “To me, he reads like your standard internet troll that managed to find a publisher”

    Was that sarcasm or are you serious? If serious, please let us know which websites have trolls posting Steyn-like thoughts on the current state of the world. I’m sure many of us willl want to add those sites and their trolls to our favorites list.

  157. I fear McConchie’s closing arguments may be too persuasive and that McCleans will get an unwanted not guilty verdict.

  158. “A hard shove down the slippery slope to censorship.” Must be met “with unflagging resistance form everyone who values freedom in a democratic society.”

    This quote that Andrew Coyne just provided by Macleans’ lawyer is absolutely brilliant and absolutely true. But remember boys & girls, “Truth is No Defense”. At least not here at the BCKC (British Columbia Kangaroo Court).

  159. Well I wouldn’t say that Ted Rogers will “cheerfully” pay, but my admiration for his principled stand is slightly flavoured by my satisfaction that I now know where the money I have been forced to pay for the extra cable outlet will be going. ;)

  160. Dear Mr. David H. Dennis:

    With respect, sir, I believe that you are mistaken in your statement about the Tribunal’s rules as to the award of costs.

    Rule 31 of the Tribunal is as follows:

    Rule 31 – Costs

    1. A party who wants the tribunal to award costs against another party must apply under rule 24 and state:

    a. how the other party engaged in improper conduct during the course of the complaint; and/or
    b. how that party contravened a rule, decision, order or direction of the tribunal.

    2. Any costs awarded under this rule are payable immediately unless a member orders otherwise.

  161. In a way, I wish Maclean’s lawyer would keep bin Laden and totalitarian Islamists out of it. The problem here isn’t that Steyn is reasonable to fear bin Ladenism and its attendants, and that writing about it is reasonable; but that groups should not be able to impose doctrinal purity on the rest of the world.

  162. I am not a lawyer, and I don’t know the import of “special pleading,” nor why it should be considered inadmissible. How much do you want to bet the phrase doesn’t ring any bells on the Tribunal, either, and that the point is therefore unpersuasive?

  163. Don’t worry its to close to lunch for them to be listening. There is only on thought. I’m hungry and your guilty.

  164. Question. I am very hurt by Al Gore, Greenpeace
    etc, calling myself and my group Warming Deniers and other worse things

    Might that be a hate crime in BC?

  165. Wow Mchonacie gave them lots of hooks to hang an acquittal on, not the least of which is the one Ontario used, lack of jurisdiction.

    We may yet get a i lack jurisdiction but think this is bad kind of ruling…..whether that is appeallable I have no idea.

    Looking forward to Porter

  166. Porrter’s up. I wonder how they’ve divided their labors? Anyone? Anyone?

  167. I agree wholeheartedly with “SK”. This is not about “Muslims” vs. “Non-Muslims”. The complainants here simply DO NOT represent all Muslims, be they in B.C. or Canada or around the world. They represent themselves. Period.

    They and they alone are trying to stamp out free speech and a free press. This is why THEY must be stopped.

    Associating all Muslims to their way of thinking is not just wrong, it plays right into the tactics of Awan, Elmasry, and their ilk.

  168. That last point is interesting. The tribunal has no power to order anyone to do anything outside of BC.

    Typically human rights and discrimination cases revolve around specific actions to or against specific people. So while the Tribunal may have authority to hear it, if they attempt any sort of penalty that goes beyond the BC borders, an appeals board will slap them down right quick, as that’s definitely outside the law.

    And here I thought Macleans’ was setting up for a loss.. I think they’re going for the win, actually.

  169. I can’t wait to hear what Porter has to say…

  170. Now taking bets Guilty 5 – 1, Not Guilty1 – 5, Not Guilty but we’ll condemn them anyway 3 – 2

  171. it’s not so much about suppression of speech but the complete tearing out by the roots of existing & long-standing Canadian speech norms & its subsequent, forced replacement with an artificial set of completely alien & culturally inappropriate norms.

  172. They need to go for a win….but I still think the tribunal will find them guilty in soe anner, ie at least a condemnation but claim lack of jurisdiction. This they can use to lever into an for more power….as in if only we could do the following.

  173. As Merk Steyn shrugged in Macleans this week.
    “Robert Frost once said that writing “free verse” was like playing poetry with the net down. The relationship of “human rights” tribunals to real courts seems to be like that: Julian Porter can whack some legalistic ace down the middle, but Faisal Joseph hurls back a box of golf balls he’s flown in from Nunavut, and the umpires award him the point.”

  174. O.K. I did it. I wrote to my M.P. Come on Canadian citizens, you can do at least as much as a permanent resident! (Thanks for encouraging me to do it. I feel like I did SOMETHING about this mess, anyway!)

  175. They may yet have a Scottish like verdict….not innocent

  176. From Wikipedia:

    Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

  177. MacLean’s needs to go for the win. They’ll lose, most likely in the Kangaroo Court, but this will make their appeal that much stronger.

  178. SK.

    Re: “…I don’t know the import of “special pleading,” nor why it should be considered inadmissible.”

    Relax…neither does the panel. And if they did, they wouldn’t apply it anyway.

  179. I am surpised that neither lawyer was able to bring up the fact that the President and Chief Operating Officer of Rogers is a Muslim.

    Hello? can somoen please pass this on to Porter.

    The name of the Roger COO is:
    Nadir Mohammed, CA.

  180. John H: Let’s put it this way. He strikes me as the kind of person who is proud to stick to his guns. And if you’re proud to stick to your guns, you’re going to cheerfully pay the bill.

    Besides, what great publicity for his magazine! Circulation is most likely up. Subscriptions are up. I doubt that he will actually make a profit, but he’s going to lose less than we think.

    Michael, unlike real courts in many jurisdictions, there is not a “loser pays” clause that simply means the loser of any case is obligated to pay all costs.

    I think that clause 31 you cite would only be triggered if there was disobedience of a rule from the tribunal, or improper conduct.

    Gross incompetence in making their case doesn’t count.

    Macleans has no realistic chance at recouping any of the money they spend on this trial (other than increased magazine sales and web hits – I must remind myself to click on an ad or two on the way out).

    D

  181. “I think that clause 31 you cite would only be triggered if there was disobedience of a rule from the tribunal, or improper conduct.”

    Are there actual rules in these proceedings? From my vantage point, the Roos seemed to be making procedure up on the fly.

  182. Ccould appeal even if they win?

  183. Mr. Dennis – you are correct – there is no general “loser pays” costs rule at the BCHRT – maybe I misunderstood your point. On the other hand, there has been plenty of improper conduct (i.e., litereally last minute evidence, witnesses on the list being withdrawn, then suddenly introduced again) that could reasonably justify an award of costs.

  184. Tarek,

    That’s an interesting fact and further supports my thesis that this entire case is not about Muslims vs. non-Muslims.

    Question: We’re learned on the comments of this blog that you had a raucous debate on Michael Coren’s show last night. Might it be available for viewing to the rest of us sometime soon?

    Robert

  185. I suppose it’s a show of respect to the committee in that it’s acknowledging that the committee would already have stopped any improper conduct, had it occured. That the committee chose not to stop anything meant they judged it wasn’t improper, and Macleans’ isn’t about to question them on that.

    To the complainaints however, it was definitely a shot across the bow.

  186. Need some background “music” as you read along? Steyn was on Mike Brock’s internet radio show last night for over an hour. It was quite unusual to get over an hour of interview time with the man. There’s an audio player at http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/

  187. FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

  188. Mick,

    I loved this sentence: “The case has drawn supporters from either side of the hot button issue, which pits proponents of freedom of speech against those who say that right should have limits.”

    However, the truthful version would have these words added at the end: “… if we don’t happen to agree with the views.”

  189. How can Elmasry argue he was harmed by the article, when the only harm he took was hurt feelings when he read the article itself? Wouldn’t he have had some kind of discrimination occur in the year or so it took for him to file the complaint? Maybe some inflamed bigot would have written something rude on Elmasry’s garage door, or maybe he would have seen something quoted as someone slashed his tires? But no, nothing but hurt feelings upon reading the article, when the Puppets pointed it out to him.

  190. So how does this work? I can read anything anywhere and then post something nasty and that makes the person who wrote what I read guilty of inciting hate.
    Wow.

  191. The fact that this is happening on D-Day strikes me as even more pathetic and depressing than ever.

  192. “I’m going to go with the written texts here, if you don’t mind…”

    What does he mean?

  193. “I’m going to go with the written texts here, if you don’t mind…”

    “What does he mean?”

    They have probably filed “friend of the court” briefs (or something similar). He’s probably going to excerpt from that instead of the oral arguments.

  194. He’s probably reading the submissions.

  195. Thomas: I’m assuming the intervenors have submitted their protests in writing.

  196. Thomas,

    We all see to be waiting to find out….I am assuming he is trying to find a link to their submissions.

  197. Thomas:

    I guess those people submitted amicus briefs on behalf of Mcleans, though I hate to give the roos credibilty by using grown-up legal terminology.

  198. Couldn’t find any prepared text for submission today by BC CLA or CAJ. We’ll have to wait but don’t hold your breath with the BCCLU.

  199. If the “Tribunal” does indeed side with the complainant in this case it should be prepared for a flood of complaints from Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians, Jehovah’s witnesses, Scientologists, etc. who take exception to a magazine article that may be seen as encouraging to bloggers who hate all of the above.

  200. Yes, thanks Andrew Coyne for your efforts. A job well done. Thanks from Cowtown.

  201. David H Dennis-you’re right. He will profit from this in the long run (I’ve subscribed to MacLeans this week as my token support and I’ve contributed to Ezra and the blogs being sued by Warman *and hope those of you who haven’t yet, will*

    My last post-this has been a wild week (in which I’ve gotten only a fraction of my work done) but a shout out to all of you for taking time to witness this incredible assault on free speech. My challenge to you all is similar to the one other posters have made. You don’t have to send money to support this cause; you can simply write to your MP, the Prime Minister, the Rob Nicholson (MOJ) and let them know it’s an election issue for you. Write also to Dr. Keith Martin and show your support. If you could take the time to post here, please take it to the next level and make your voice heard and your vote count.

    Peace out

  202. Great job Andrew…I just don’t know what I will do next week to avoid working.This was really riveting.

  203. Laura, thank you for reminding us all. I have just given you credit here.

  204. THANK YOU, ANDREW!!!!!

  205. I liked the juxtaposition of the closing arguments…fascistic suppression.vs.free speech, especially as this is D-Day + 44 years.

    Wasn’t there a whole ‘never again” commitment we who are privileged to follow after were supposed to uphold?

  206. After this week, I regret not being in the publishing business any longer – I would very quickly publish a Steyn excerpt as my contribution to the cause.
    Failing that, I too have made a donation (via Paypal) to Ezra’s legal fees and intend to write my MP and others.
    After all of our efforts this week to stay in touch, I think it important that each of us – as ‘leaders’ in this fight – which we are by virtue of being here, of following the issues – have a responsibility to carry this fight onwards.
    As someone earlier quoted:
    To you, with failing hands we throw, The torch/Be yours to hold it high”…
    an appropriate sentiment on exactly the right day for it.

  207. Dear Honorable Ed Stelmach and Honorable Member Lindsey Blackett,

    I have been following the recent British Columbia Human Rights Commission proceedings against Maclean’s Magazine and Mark Steyn. I am appalled by what is transpiring in our neighbouring province, and while I recognize that you have no authority in that jurisdiction, you most certainly have the power to affect change in this province. With the overwhelming majority that you command in the legislature you have the ability to set right what is more and more becoming a travesty of justice and a perversion of “human rights”. I would ask that you review the current Alberta Human Right’s Commission’s mandate and enact legislation to limit their power and scope, so that simply offending someone or possessing an alternative view point does not become a crime. Certainly there is a place for the Alberta Human Right’s Commission as no one should be denied opportunities because of their race, gender, orientation or age, but no where is it guaranteed that you will not be offended. Those who are offended by other’s options should welcome the opportunity to create public debate, champion their beliefs, and possibly even garner public support for their cause. I strongly resent the notion of “thought police” dictating to me what I should believe and what voices should be heard.

    Sincerely,

    Jamie Palmer

  208. Mr. Coyne, thank you for live-blogging this event. I wish Maclean’s well as you fight this travesty.

  209. And along with many others, THANK YOU, ANDREW! You are a hero.

  210. They have already finished their closing statements, so I would be suprised if they continued on Monday.

  211. Where can the texts submitted by the intervenors be seen? Links to them please?

  212. I’ll throw my two cents in with the thank yous to Mr. Coyne for covering this–it’s something we (US) Americans need to know about, too.

    Adding to the irony of this being the D-Day anniversary, the amount of disinterest in the public sphere about what this day means is really chilling. Google’s main page today is commemorating Diego Velazquez’ birthday–a great artist, but really!

  213. So we’re left hanging?

  214. My God, I was just thinking! When Macleans is convicted, we commentors must be guilty of something, right? “Accessories after the fact” or something!!

    Before you scoff, remember what we’re dealing with here.

    Kidding.

    Sort of.

  215. In the same vein as previous posts, let’s see to it that Macleans gets recognition for its act of defiance. International recognition — let’s get them nominated for a Freedom Award or other journalism-related prize.
    And yes, Andrew is one of our heroes of the day.

  216. Andrew, I want to add my own heartfelt “Thank You” to the thread; as maddening as this travesty has been to read, imagine where we’d be if you hadn’t kept a running record of this farce all week long.

    Now off to donate some money for the fights to come…

  217. My prediction is either a slam dunk and Mcleans is hammered. Or, the roos come back with a “jurisdictional” technicality by deliver a verdict much like OHRC. This would me a win for the HRC because they get to declare guilt but rob Mcleans the right to appeal. Also, it gives the CIC and the socks the ability to cry victim again (no right of reply or monetary award) and they get to use it as an example of how “intolerant” the laws are and it gives the HRC defenders a platform to attack for more laws (i.e. OHRC) because they will claim Mcleans would have been found guilty (the drive by verdict) if not for the technicality.

  218. I was breathing a sigh of relief while reading DH Smith’s comment, “My God, I was just thinking! When Macleans is convicted, we commentors must be guilty of something, right? “Accessories after the fact” or something!!,” thinking I’d be safe, and then I remembered the tribunal’s wierd rules, or lack thereof, of jurisdiction. Being Floridian wouldn’t matter, not if they count websites in Belgium.

  219. This whole thing reminds me of the travelling circus awhile back in Quebec with the immigration issues. Good grief! I hope some other Conservatives are following this one because I think my boy Stevie : should repeal bill C250 (I think) the bill that sets up this Hate Crime stuff – we have a criminal code use it or lose it is what I say.

  220. On the lighter side: from today’s article, “the very ‘tocsin of liberty.’” He’s quoting JFK there, and, well, imitating his accent.”

    Ask not what your Human Rights Tribunal can do for you, but what you can do for your Humans Rights Tribunal.

  221. re: MKN, I think using the term hero to describe Andrew Coyne is over the top. He’s just doing his job albeit doing it well. Just another example of how overused the word hero is these days. I think Levant and Lemire, and to a lesser extend Steyn are the real heroes here. Lemire was in the forefront of challenging the CHRT. Ezra has also been very staunch. The only reason I say to a lesser extent with respect to Mark Steyn is because he has MacCleans at his back and is, frankly, getting a lot of publicity for his book out of this. I think the real sacrifices are being made by Lemire and Levant.

  222. Thank you Andrew. You, as did Ezra during the first two days, have provided invaluable reporting and commentary to we the living. Merci encore.

  223. Anyway well done Andrew and thank you.

  224. I’m not sure how you can suggest someone is getting embarassed. They explicitly said he could type and step outside to send, but here in Canada we have laws to prevent live coutroom proceedings from being broadcast to the public in order to prevent the kind of show-trial hooplah crap like OJ that goes on down in the states.

    Applying it to a wholly text based medium, that is transcribed and edited by an individual, does seem to be stretching the definition some, but technology changes and legislation doesn’t often keep up with it very well.

  225. Bob Williams,

    I guess that’s why Hemmingway didn’t stop all of that inane class room discussions about “Old Man and the Sea” when he said “The man is a man, the fish is a fish and the sea is the sea”

  226. …and in case you thought it was impossible…it gets even wackier! And it took them 5 days to realize that live blogging was going on??

  227. No transcript, no recordings, and now no “broadcasting”.

    Do they really think this is going to be swept under the rug? I believe they do.

  228. …and has anyone read AC’s “CODA” to this fiasco?
    Jesus wept.

  229. Did you tell him it’s not a courtroom?

  230. “Broadcasting.”

    Sheesh.

  231. Did the offical who prohibited “live-blogging” use the term “courtroom”? Was it intended generically (this is a room for court proceedings in the natural course of business) or did the official arrogate court status to the proceedings?

    Just curious.

    Regards,
    Ted from Texas

  232. “As I left the courtroom for the lunch break, i was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom.”

    Does this mean that the Human Rights judges are only now finding out that we’ve all been following their actions this closely all week long?

    I hope they are properly embarrassed. Serves them right for not getting their news from blogs…!

  233. I’m just glad they didn’t catch on till it was nearly over.

  234. Just read the Coda… another clumsy attempt to avoid the glare of publicity? No stenographer, “audio difficulties”, no “broadcasting” allowed.

  235. END ALL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS NOW! They make a mockery of our Justice system (like they needed any help to do that) and were only a sop to the PC crowd in the first place. Grow a thicker skin and let the true “hate” crimes be dealt with by the courts, where rules are in place.

    Anyone think that the BC Gov’t will intervene before this comes to a decision?

  236. Only in Canada eh? Pity.

  237. No, he explained: but liveblogging counts as broadcasting. It’s not the computer that’s the problem. You can type away on it all you want. If you step outside to send it, that’s okay, too. But if you send text from within the courtroom, that’s broadcasting.

    Yes – We wouldnt want the Canadian public to find out what were doing :)

  238. Oh Canada, our “Brave and Demented Dominion” who will stand on guard for thy future! What is thy future? do you even have one!
    “Those who forget their past have no future”.
    We in Canada have forgotten the past that helped to shape us. Weather we like it or not we are molded by Judeo/Christian and European values. We have 800 years of Common Law behind us, but all that is thrown away in this post modern world of political correctness.
    Oh Canada how I weep for thee!

  239. Great job this week Mr. Coyne! Thanks for keeping us up to date as our democracy goes down the drain.

  240. Next time, send an assistant to take Andrew’s updates a step outside the room to “broadcast”.

  241. 340+ comments.

    Damn. Good work.

  242. Andrew – Thank you for a job extremely well done.

    We should all write to our MP’s, and maybe join in and support Ezra on PayPal.

    And buy Mark’s excellent book!

    Can’t wait to hear the “verdict”. We may win this battle, but the war seems lost already.

  243. Re: “As I left the courtroom for the lunch break, i was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom.”

    All I can say is “Baaaaa”

  244. Are you telling me that it took them until Friday at noon to figure out that Andrew was “broadcasting”? These guys really are clueless.

    The rest of us have been hitting refresh like heroin addicts all week, and these guys didn’t even know what was going on? Even Mike Duffy talked about it on CTV news.

    Which makes me think they will convict. I was assuming that the roos would not want to endanger their jobs that much, so they’d let Macleans off the hook. But obviously the whole enterprise really is clueless as to what’s going on in the real world. So there’s hope, after all…

  245. No transmitting from in the “courtroom”? What a load. They claim that they are a court? First they should learn to follow the rules of evidence and other conventions of real courts.

  246. I don’t think a more fitting ending to the story could take place than the one you gave.

  247. What does a court official have to do with any of this? Was it the same court official that setup the audio recording?

  248. Sheila G:

    Yes, there are probably twenty to fifty of us who have been incredulously and avidly following the trial here. I had mistakenly thought there would be a widespread Canadian ground-swell of disgust over the inane proceedings – I’m wrong again.

  249. Kudos to Macleans and Coyne for pursuing the liveblogging. We would be so much more in the dark hereto if we hadn’t the opportunity to wear our keyboard out this week. Just utterly amazing. What a great group of commenters as well.

  250. Tarek Fatah you are a great gift to this country. I mean it.

  251. ” I had mistakenly thought there would be a widespread Canadian ground-swell of disgust over the inane proceedings – I’m wrong again.”

    I’ve asked around at work and not a single person has a clue about this.

  252. He should have just kept on typing – if he’s allowed to type, he’s allowed to type, and if he accidentally hits the submit button every once in a while, then that’s just his misunderstanding of how “broadcasting” works.

    That aside, thanks for your hard work and the court’s heavy handed effort to suppress you at the end does indeed seem appropriate. Maybe resistance would have been pointless.

    So when do we hear the verdict?

    D

  253. Comments are now closed. Thanks.