‘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.)
October 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
As an expert on the subject, I am “detecting” sarcasm in your post. :-)
October 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I trust that you used the eleven “Signs of Sarcasm” and took full account of the fact I am a good enough writer that I may have hidden my sarcasm beneath a veneer of non-objectionable prose.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
You won’t trick me into sarcastophobic discourse.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jay,
Nice to see you’ve tossed your lot in with the tin-foil hat crowd, although your comments are nowhere near as goofy as those offered by Shaidle and Vere (Human Rights Experts R Us) and Coyne (ethics, what ethics?)
For the record, anybody who a) knew the law governing these sections and b) knew about HRT procedure coud see this was doomed from the get go. (Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so more than once).
In my view the most telling passage can be found at para. 8-11 of the decision, where the panel explains
1. That all complaints that involve more than conjecture or speculation are set down for hearing;
2. That the HRT doesn’t initiate or investigate complaints and won’t dismiss a complaint without hearing from both parties
3. That respondents can apply to dismiss a complaint before hearing on grounds set out in s. 27; and
4. For some reason, Macleans made no such application. Instead, they filed a defence that sounds a lot like a defence in defamation action, citing fair comments, truth and qualified privilege
Now, Julian Porter and Roger McConchie are fine lawyers, veritable deans of the defamation bar. And together, they bill out at something north of $1000/hr. But apparently they are subject the axiom that when all you’ve got is a hammer (or expertise in libel law) everything look like a nail (or a defamation suit). Either that or Macleans thought the publicity would be worth the effort. Because as I read paragraphs 8-11, the Tribunal is essentially shaking its collective head and wondering why these legal geniuses – unlike human rights lawyers who come much cheaper – couldn’t figure out the simple (and inexpensive) way to deal with this complaint and why they proceeded as if the were defending Macleans from a million dollar libel suit filed by Tubby Black.
Long story short: This probably could have been resolved by sending a junior down to file a S. 27 application. For reasons known only to Macleans and its counsel, it wasn’t.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Well, one down, untold thousands yet to go. I will not be satisfied until the Human Rights machine (aka political correctness enforcement machine), as it exists in this country today, is permanently disabled and its numerous victims (the if a but not b’s) have been discovered and appropriately compensated. And I’m really disturbed that none of our political parties seem to be the least bit interested in this, especially during an election campaign. Is it un-Canadian to stand up for freedom of expression and the primacy of law?? Has political correctness achieves such a strangle hold on our country that potential MPs dare not even attempt break the code.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Has anyone gotten an official statement yet from Joan Tintor’s favorite pussy, The Lyin’ Jackal (trademark and patent pending)?