‘Roos blink
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed. bchrt at mark steyn
More when the decision comes available. Right now congratulations to Mark and Mcleans. And a moment of nostalgic hilarity as we bid adieu (until appeal - snort) to the Mohammedan Legal Titan Faisal Joseph, the looney law students and the CIC.
Analysis to follow but, for the moment lets hope that puts paid to the Islamists attempts to censor free speech in Canada.
Update 1: Coyne,
More comment to follow once I’ve read the thing, but be clear on this: it is no victory to be told by a shadowy government agency that you will be permitted to publish. This ruling only preserves the tribunal from utterly discrediting itself, and as such keeps alive the possibility that some other complainant can drag Maclean’s or any other media organization through yet another travesty half-a-continent away, at great expense of time and money. It also prevents Maclean’s from appealing the tribunal’s decision to an actual court, wherein it might have had the relevant section of the B.C. human rights laws thrown out on constitutional grounds — the only way freedom of speech and the press will finally be preserved. (A thought: can you appeal when you win?) mcleans andrew coyne
Update 2: five feet of (thwarted) fury,
Well, now we’ll get to hear, “It’s cuz we iz Muslims, init?” for the next 10 years. Jews have always won their HRC cases against neo-Nazis, and Christians always lose to gays; the optics are bad all around.
Mohammed Al-Sharpton will say, “This verdict is just as Islamophobic as Steyn’s articles.” ffof
Update 3: The decision can be read here. I am reading it and will have preliminary comments shortly.
Update 4: (because I know truewest is on the edge of his seat) The weird part is that the Tribunal seems to have concluded that 1) the Islamic Legal Titan failed to lead expert evidence as to the actual effect of the article, 2) that the Article lead to a political debate which s. 7(1)(b) was “never intended to suppress”.
Read straight (and very quickly) the Tribunal is basically adopting the “suck it up” position that political speech is legitimate in a pluralistic society. (For which we vassals should be grateful.)
Now these folks don’t put it this way but the way I read this decision is that it imposes a two part test a) are your words offensive and hurtful? b) are you a major media organization with deep pockets represented by serious lawyers. If “a” and not “b” you are a hate monger; if “a” and “b” you are engaged in political debate.
(Deborah Gyapong seems to reach much the same conclusion but far more eloquently.)
More analysis later but right now it is a lovely afternoon and time for a good long Fall walk.
Update 5: Welcome Corner readers…nothing but good, clean political debate here. (Although I do publish from a basement - just not my mother’s.)
Written by jay on October 10th, 2008 with
6 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and free speech.
- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
jay
truewest
Hannibal Lectern
#1. October 10th, 2008, at 10:44 AM.
As an expert on the subject, I am “detecting” sarcasm in your post.