Steyn Follies - 1st Intermission
Meta-liveblogging is all about the analysis: Ezra and Andrew Coyne are, in their very different ways, in the room. Ezra has a laptop with an apparent wi-fi connection (apparently has pals at the CHRC) and Andrew is thumbing his way to glory on a Blackberry.
So, Day 1: the Socks’ mouthpiece (and what an honour Faisal has) has established that a guy in Ontario was offended by something in Macleans that was written by Mark Steyn. He decided to get a few of his law school remedial class together and do some research as to where best offended people might be able to speak truth to power with the full backing of the government. But, on the nodding ninny’s own testimony, first they went on a wee shakedown expedition to Macleans, “Let us edit your magazine for a week, our piece, our art, our cover, no editing and, by the way, give us some money for “a good cause.” Showing great restraint, editor Ken Whyte declined this blackmail so the Socks filed complaints.
On the nodding ninny’s testimony they went jurisdiction shopping and found that their loony case had some chance on the print side in BC. So, on behalf of British Columbia Muslims – who generally have done nothing to deserve this sort of crap – Elmasry filed a complaint. Which, in a round about way, is why we are here.
What was very apparent at today’s hearing was that the poor Islamists – including their lawyer – are at sea as to what their actual case is. They seem to think that Mark Steyn’s understanding of the Koran is in issue: it isn’t. They are willing to suggest that a post on Kathy’s blog – a post she is very proud of by the way – is proof of the Steyn article’s impact (which is simply proof they have not been reading Kathy very long.) They want to bring You-tube comments into evidence.
The term “clutching at straws” seems to cover pretty much the whole of the Socks’ case.
And, amusingly enough, the Tribunal, so far has indicated that the total fecklessness of the Socks’ case and the rank incoherence of the Socks’ mouthpiece does not matter. And, hey, the Tribunal has a point: where the test is “may tend to promote hatred or contempt” the bar is a millimeter from the floorboards.
The Macleans lawyers are not inexperienced nor are they unwise. On the one hand they raised objections to the more preposterous bits of evidence the Socks’ mouthpiece sought to introduce but, on the other, they were perfectly willing to let the mouthpiece and the Commission keep digging.
Tomorrow, I hope, we are going to have the pleasure of watching an intelligent, courtly and very smart guy, gently flay the nodding ninny in cross-examination. The good news is that the poor ninny is clearly too stupid to understand how badly sliced up he will be by the close of the day. Sort of like the mentally deficient folks the Palis and al Qaeda like strapping the remote detonation murder bombs to. “”Go see the nice Israeli soldiers, Pauly, say “Hi” to the nice men.” Khurrum Awan’s problem is that the bomb pack he’s carrying will not bring him his 72 raisins but it may also take down the Islamist cause in Canada.
The Vancouver hearings are really no more than a fixed preliminary bout on a main card in which the Islamists will be largely irrelevant. The heavyweight fight is Taylor vs. the Modern World. Taylor, as regular readers will remember is the 4/3 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which said that while the Human Rights Codes speech provisions were, in fact, in violation of s. 2 of the Charter they were saved – in the particular circumstances of the Taylor case (dial a hate message) – by s.1 of the Charter as falling under “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” out.
Without doing a thing today Macleans have been handed the basic materials for the only challenge to the overbroad powers of the HRCs which can work – a constitutional challenge. At a guess the legal team will spend a good deal of this week running up the points. They are lucky in their opposition and in the Chair of the Tribunal – both have not the foggiest idea of due process or evidence or, and this is perhaps most important, the rights which are enshrined in the Charter.
We’ll see what happens tomorrow. Tactically, I hope Porter does not make Khurrum Awan cry. But what I really hope is that the jihad of cross examination does not make him detonate. I should miss neither he nor his lawyer but there are some very good people in that tiny Hearing room.
Meanwhile: The Lying Jackal comes out from underneath his rock to back and fill:
As loathsome as the two of them are, the complaints against Levant and Steyn should never have gotten as far as they did. But, when you read this “journalism” – there, that was their technique – it certainly tends to persuade one that fairness, and balance, actually have been denied to certain people who were upset about what had been said about their faith. And that, even if they will lose, they had a bit of a point. the lying jackal (no link, I have the screen shot)
Day one is all that’s needed for this court watcher. Elmo and the socks have no valid complaint and the “roos” have no jurisdiction…but what the frag do I know…I’m not a “smart assed lefty” who thinks a couple of NGO pimps are legit victims and kangaroo justice is virtuous.
Jay Currie –
Such reviews as “Steyn Follies – 1st Intermission” need to be archived and accessible to us outside Canada so that we may spread the ripples of this trial to those who still believe in free speech, rule of law, and the honor of our ancestors’ sacrifices for those precious ideas.
An excellent analysis Jay. I would think that by the end of the morning (PST) we will have a clear indication of Julian’s trial strategy.
I agree that thus far it seems he is allowing much of the nonesense to go in without vigorous challenge so that the case on appeal will contain much more substance. The delicacy of that tactic of course is that he cannot be seen to be simply “allowing” the irrelevant material, hearsay, and otherwise inadmissable documents to go in as evidence, since he then may be faced with the admonition from a real court: “But Mr Porter, you did not challenge that evidence before the panel, how can you be said to object at this stage?” That applies as well to a “token” objection which may be described as “no serious objection” by counsel for the Appellant. It will be a “fine” line (no pun intended) that he will have to walk to ensure the witness keeps talking and the panel keeps overruling his objections.
It will be most interesting to read (if we can) the verbatim questions and comments of defense counsel during cross-examination. Hopefully Andrew or Ezra will give us that option, rather than their opinion on what they interpret the evidence or question to be.
Mark Steyn is a brilliant writer, and Macleans do not in my opinion violate any conduct regarding racism. Wake up Tribunal, you have a job to do, do not show yourselves to be fools by your bias.If you catered to other religions as you do the Moslems it would be more honest of you. You run in fear by those who threaten the free world with their whinging of their treatment, yet they are prepared to blow us to kingdom come at a given whim. Most in the world have no idea what racism is. and neither it seems do you who profess to protect us. Mark Steyn certainly is not a racist! You will do Canada a great injustice if you stop his writings, wakeup to what is truly Free Speech. This matter should never have even been to a Tribunal when Mr Elmasry has never been brought to account for his hatefilled comments. I am disgusted that you even have a tribunal on such a topic.
I wonder what sort of reputation is enjoyed by this “Osgoode Hall,” at which Khurrum Awan has studied “law,” and what merit it really has. The school has only come to my attention by means of the Sockpuppets and the drones at “Law Is Cool,” and those have given me the impression that “Osgoode Hall” does little more than take in argumentative young men and women and teach them to think extremely well of themselves without reason. Is there more?
Osgoode Hall has gone in half a century from being considered the finest law school in Canada to being known as the most hard left of Cdn. law schools.
Awan is what a leftist law school, in a leftist “multicultural” country is bound to produce.
O.k., o.k., that’s all fine and good what you report, but I am nowhere able to find what the Queen of Hearts said. Don’t you think THAT should be a part of the testimony? I move to submit “Alice In Wonderland” as evidence, and to heck with the consequences. [I’ll bet the Stalinsist wannabe ‘commission’ (of legal fraud) would allow it, if the ‘poor innocent victims’ wanted it.]