Jay Currie

We’re back. Coyne reports he has a dongle. A super, duper whooper dongle which allows his laptop to hook into the net from the bowels of the Robson Street Courthouse.

Coyne also reports that Faisal Joseph is promising a tour of the nastier bits of the blogosphere. Now what that can possibly have to do with an article published in Macleans beats him and me…but as I am still suffering from blog envy at Kathy being mentioned yesterday I can only hope I will make it to the bigs today.

Update 1: LOL Ezra: “How I wish this were in a real court, not a court marsupial, just to watch Joseph get smacked down.”

Update 2: Having been slapped down trying to enter as evidence a clipping of an article published prior to Steyn’s piece Ezra reports “Faisal Joseph wants to enter into evidence a study about Islamophobia.

A study about Islamophobia in the fifteen European Union countries.”

Perfect. It is quite apparent that Joseph really has no clue at all. He doesn’t know the rules even where there are no rules. What a waste of legal talent to have Julian Porter sitting through all of this. A competent articling student would be able to object to this crap.

From Coyne: “McConchie rising for the defense: “I think my friend’s memory may be a little imperfect.” The documents presented bear only a slight resemblance to the list of docs in the disclosure letter.”

Which in normal court would be the end of it….but this is the all seeing, all knowing BCHRT…”we don’t need your stinking procedure”.

Joseph is trying to enter studies of Islamophobia from the EU and Britain…I can’t help but think that some bien pensant Canadian professor or other will have written such a study about Canada. Yup, there is one about the needs of Muslim students in Canada which is a bit closer to the mark. Here’s a hint for Joseph’s researchers – Google.

Update 3: Ezra quoting McConchie “I accept this tribunal is not bound by the same rules as a regular court, but there are boundaries, there’s a minimal requirement to prove the authority of the document that’s submitted to the tribunal that is represented to be some sort of academic study, and that would ordinarily be done through an expert witness, and not a lay witness who happens to have seen it.”

No danger that the BCHRT will start demanding anything so official as an expert witness testifying to the authority of a particular bit of expert evidence. That sounds hard. These folks are all about soft.

Coyne and Ezra both report that McConchie is arguing about the lack of disclosure on the part of the Socks. I have no doubt that McConchie has a point but I can’t imagine that the Tribunal will take his point because it would call the entire slap dash, we have no rules, informality of the whole HRC system into question. Procedure, disclosure, expert evidence – are all concepts which imply a degree of formality. A rule of law as it were. The absence of that rule of law is seen as a feature by the HRC’s supporters.

Right on the mark: Joseph stands up and makes the argument that the rules of evidence are for the “appellate level”.

We’re on a break while the Tribunal tries to figure out this law, evidence and disclosure stuff. While they are head scratching (“experts”, “proper disclosure” who knew?) take a trip to Free Mark Steyn for the best round up of things Steynian on the planet.

Update 4: Coyne reports the Comission ruling: “The late disclosure is “unfortunate.” Disclosure did not meet rules, and was inadequate. But respondents could have sought further and better disclosure. Respondents’ interests will not be “prejudiced” by it.” Even a marsupial would be ashamed with this sort of legal nonsense. If disclosure is required to be made and isn’t the evidence cannot go in…Except at the BCHRT.

The respondent won’t be prejudiced because the respondent’s goose is already cooked. The UN report has no established relevance but that does not matter because relevance cannot matter to these clowns. Otherwise the gig would be up.

Update 5: Babs attacked. Now that the kangaroos have demonstrated they will allow pretty much anything in I suspect there is a dumptruck full of previously undisclosed “evidence” which will be backed up to the back door – evedince in this matter seems to go in the back door.

Update 6: It’s Fatwa Time “Awan has just given us his own ruling: it is no longer “appropriate” to use the word “Mohammedan”. Ever.” I suppose that includes Muzzie.

Update 7: While Awan testifies to the deficiencies – real or imagined – of Mark Steyn as a drama critic it is worth considering how badly this is all going for the whole human rights racket. They have had a day and a half of testimony from a largely unsympathetic character lead by a marvelously sloppy lawyer. They have had to bend the rules to allow evidence in. There has been next to no evidence germane to the complaint and, hey, the fun stuff, the cross-examination of this little twerp hasn’t even begun.

Update 8: Apparently Awan is now objecting to Babs having noted that the Muslims sacked the Library at Alexandria. This is, of course, what happens when a Tribunal simply drops the idea that evidence and testimony must be relevant to the matter before that Tribunal. Perhaps Joseph has one of Steyn’s laundry lists up his sleeve ready to spring on an unsuspecting defence.

Update 9: I’m crushed…the blogs mentioned are the Western Standard, Brussels Journal (lots of relevance there) and what Ezra describes as “a Catholic blog”... No cake for me ;(

But, hope springs eternal, McConchie has sprung to his feet and suggested to the ‘roos that Ezra’s post at the WS is “immaterial” to the proceedings. Ezra’s pissed. Don’t worry Ezra, on the prior evidence the ‘roos wouldn’t know immaterial if it hit them.

Update 10: Crazy McConchie is suggesting to the ‘roos that blogs in Brussels and Texas and Alberta are just the tiniest bit irrelevant to a matter in BC. What a silly argument. The jurisdiction of the ‘roos is universal. Not a bird sings without its song being relevant in a roo proceeding.

Update 11 – and Lunch: Coyne writes: “Joseph returns fire. The Belgium post is available “on a thing called the internet.”

Commenters on the Western Standard blog, he points out, talk about killing Muslims, doing terrible things to Muslims. It is graphic, he says, and shocking. Direct link to Steyn’s article, he says. He’s on a roll here, voice rising.”

What’s great fun here is that the direct link is to 19 Mohammedans flying a couple of airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Steyn was a bit late on the scene.

Just before Lunch: Frankly this morning has been pathetic. It is not in the least clear what Joseph is trying to prove or if he is trying to prove anything. Maybe he is just trying to postpone the ritual slaughter of Khurrum Awan on cross examination. Maybe he is hearing voices. Maybe he will detonate himself or the dolt he has for a witness and bring down the curtain early.

Were I a Muslim I would be down at the Courthouse with the biggest sign I could carry with the words, “Faisal Joseph does not speak for me, and neither does the CIC.”

People have written that one of Islam’s biggest issues is its constant humiliation. Well, if you show up with a lousy case badly prepared it is a pretty good bet you will be humiliated.

A merciful BCHRT would come back from lunch and dismiss the complaint as having no prospect of success. As if.

Now to get some work done.