Steyn Follies - 2nd Intermission - Turn, Turn…Kick
Reviewing the day, the morning was a write off. The ‘roos let in whatever loony evidence Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph lead through the Dead Sock sitting in the witness chair and it didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because Joseph has not the foggiest idea of what his own case is. Here’s a hint, the case for the complainant is that Macleans published an article which might cause hatred or contempt to be directed at a particular group. It really is pretty straightforward. Prove that Macleans published the article, and prove that it might cause hatred or contempt towards a particular group and you’re done.
Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph apparently thinks there is more to a Human Rights Act complaint than that. But, unfortunately, the evidence he has lead gives us no hint as to what the “more” might be.
The afternoon was far more entertaining simply because we got to watch a really good lawyer with a really good case slice and dice an imbecile. I almost felt sorry for the Dead Sock as his lies, one by one, were exposed to the Tribunal. Porter did not waste a word or a question. He set out to destroy the Dead Sock’s credibility and, an hour later, that credibility was lying, shredded around the witness chair.
But, for the sort of money Porter charges, you really have to expect the two’fer and we got it in spades. Not only was the Dead Sock exposed as a liar he was also – along with his fellow Socks – exposed as an extortionist. The Socks wanted editorial control, art direction and money. Porter made the Dead Sock admit it.
So now we have the Dead Sock as both a liar and an extortionist. In a little over an hour. Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph sat on his hands as the poor kid was skinned in public. And, of course, if Joseph had done any work at all on the file, he would have known this was coming.
Then, just for the sheer fun of it, Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph called a rather unusual looking UVic prof to testify to, er, what? Ah, I remember, Mark Steyn’s “mis-interpretation of the Koran”. I don’t remember Mark putting much reliance on the Koran but, what the heck. Now it turns out that Professor Rippon is quite a fan of Mark’s and, while he had a quibble here and there with some of Mark’s more journalistic turns of phrase and fact, he could just as easily have been called as an expert for the defence. It is never a good day for a Mohammedan legal titan like Faisal Joseph when opposing counsel compliments the witness on his intellectual integrity.
All of which is, I’m afraid, isn’t good for us Speechers. As truewest (irritating, but legally trained and smart) points out:
As for the Rules of Evidence (my capitals were facetious, how ’bout yours) I think you’re making a lot of fuss about nothing. For one thing, the tribunal has hardly thrown the door wide open (or any wider than similar tribunals have done). For another, I’ve seen judges in the “ordinary courts” (as Dicey liked to call them) make stranger rulings and let it in even more marginal evidence. They did it circumstances where it was clear that the party who sought to lead the marginal evidence was going to lose in any event and was grasping at straws. They did it, I suspect, because they didn’t want to give the losing party any possible grounds for appeal. After all, why get in the way of a falling body? truewest, my comments (and send me your email privately as we should get together for a beer)
Which is, as truewest and Alan from Gen-X-40 point out, really bad news for Speechers. Real world, we need to lose here and lose big. At this point Ted Rogers and Macleans are ready to run this to the Supreme Court and, in the process, take a run at Taylor and its baleful results. For the first time in nearly two decades we have the case and, the deep pocket defendant, to kill Taylor dead.
I suspect the BCHRT had realized this case was a mutt pretty much as Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph opened his mouth and are now looking for a reason to kick it. Brilliantly, but sadly from the political perspective, Porter gave them all the reasons in the world when he demonstrated that the principal witness for the complainant is a liar. (And good luck on the job front Socks.)
Macleans is, apparently, not going to lead any evidence at all or call any witnesses – and why would they given the speciousness of the complaint – so we are up for a day or two more of Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph leading evidence at random and counsel for Macleans objecting pro forma and then slaughtering on cross.
Had the ‘roos the wit they would dismiss at 9:30 AM tomorrow on the basis that the claim has no chance of success. Unfortunately for Ted Rogers’ wallet I suspect they will keep the show up until Friday and then bring down the curtain.
Bye Socks, see you in Ottawa. Try doing some prep.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
> “... and then slaughtering on cross…”
This is a complex Qur’anic pun, right?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
This case is an embarassment to BC justice. Neither Complainant nor Defendent are compelled to testify, notwithstanding the nominal public import of these processes.
Does Islam expand its reach by military means? Where they can. In ibn-Ishaq’s 8th c biography of Muhammad, he recorded 59 military campaigns where the “prophet” participated. In only 1 case – Battle of the Trench – did Muslims defend. During Muhammad’s life he directed conquests of Mecca, Yemen, Oman and Arab Byzantium (Tabuk campaign). The Koran is the only nominal sacred book that includes a chapter on distribution of captured “booty” (anfal) of war. During the NATO conquest of Afghanistan, a captured audiotape of bin-Laden (with Wahabi visitors), captured him glowing in reference to jihad terror activity. He equated same with the conduct of Muhammad’s cohorts (sahaba).
One can be accused of fallacy by false generalization if one claims that Muslims all believe that they are jihad robots, but it is equally fallacious to claim that they are inherently pacifist. Suppression of free thought will hardly contribute to examination of the aggressive-passive controversy. Muslims are going to have to learn to take criticism; they have every right to counter accusations.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Can’t the Koran be banned in BC since it is apparently hate speech and incites all sorts of violins.
Alternatively, each Koran in BC should have a surgeons warning placed on the cover and a bible appended to the back cover.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Remember, the Maclean’s legal team had another choice – to bring an interim motion to determine an issue of law, to have the provisions of the Act declared unconstitutional based on the statutory provisions alone. Lose that motion, appeal that motion into the courts immediately. They decided to get into the hearing and the evidence and the facts as much as the tribunal and the complainants did. They may not have known the case was as bad as it was but if they really wanted to change the law they had a more direct route.
Which makes me wonder about the need of everyone involved to make this matter notorious before it is legally resolved.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Sorry I can’t follow wishful ideological distractions in this case. It’s irrelevant what Porter does with the complainant’s witness in this marsupial love nest. It’s irrelevant to HRT if he lies, or if he can “prove” his case ( which he doesn’t have to with the reverse onus of HRC code).
It’s not about Awan, It’s about HRC perceptions of the wider Muslim community being “likely” recipients of hate due to the Maclean’s article.
All FJ has to say is this caused someone or is likely to cause someone to be exposed to hatred or ethnic ridicule…he doesn’t even have to prove it, he can “believe” it and that is enough.
And he has actually done that. He has satisfied the thin requirements for the HRT to act.
The truth of Steyn’s writing, the accuracy of the article, their ability to prove there was no malice or that their opponents are liars is irrelevant.
At stake here also is the HRTs track record of convictions on reverse onus and complainant “belief” or fear of “likely” damage due to a communicated message.
If they punt the Macleans case that sets precedent that a factual legal defense discrediting a complainant must be recognized and acted on…and THAT fouls up the status quo ad hoc HRC procedures…this is the core of their power their intimidation weapon over speech…will they allow it to be muted with precedent?
I still believe they will render a guilty decision to Macleans but limit their (Taylor decision) liabilities on the appeal by making it a soft judgement….no cease and desist order, just a scolding and a reqirement to embrace the Islamic” “community” in the future. If they appeal that they will seem like meanies. The OHRC screed set the monologue for this judgement.
If Mcleans have this struck down on appeal it will have less impact on the HRCs directly than the precedent set by tossing a case due to complaint credibility.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Put aside Steyn and Macleans for a while, I think this hearing has exposed a very worthwhile fact.
We know the Koran allows muslims to lie when dealing with non-muslims and that has been exposed here. Apparently this doctrine is being used in our courts by lawyers (or potential lawyers).
My question then, should the various bars being admitting muslim lawyers to administer Canadian law? Do we really want lawyers distorting our justice system for the benefit of muslims?