Steyn Follies - Act V - “a pair of scaredy-pants”
We’re back. We only have Andrew Coyne in the room - Ezra had to go home - and I really do have to get some work done. But, as the wheels fall of the Socks’ case and the ‘Roos wonder how to get rid of this steaming heap, I will be following along. Putting the meta into live blogging.
Update 1: “Faiza Hirji, an expert in “analyzing stereotypes in the media with regard to minorites,” with a speciality in Muslim minorities.” coyne I am assuming that Ms. Hirji will try to explain that the Dead Sock is the major loser he is because of Mark Steyn’s article and Macleans magazine. Ms. Hirji apparently wrote her dissertation on identity construction and Brollywood - which would, perhaps, qualify her as an expert with respect to Steyn’s TV reviewing - but seems a little off the track here.
Not that it will matter, the ‘roos are past caring.
Unlike Dr. Rippin, yesterday’s witness on the Koran, Ms. Hirji is a baby PhD and apparently McConchie is making her lack of eminence very clear to the ‘roos. But it is not likely to matter as I suspect Ms. Hirji will rattle on about discourse in a fact free manner and generally confirm any existing thoughts the ‘roos might have.
“The panel retires to consider.” Poor Coyne. The fact is that Joseph and the Socks have no case left. They are going through the motions and trying to put in enough distractions and shiney objects that the ‘roos will wave them through. Coyne has to physically sit through this.
Update 2: I hope Macleans is paying Coyne well because the ‘roos have decided to hear Ms. Hirji’s “evidence”.
Update 3: Coyne reports “She reads a passage, says she sees a stereotype in it. Reads another, sees another. The cover is another stereotype, because it shows women wearing burkhas.” This is simply silly evidence. A stereotype or a symbol are not in themselves likely to engender hatred or contempt. Finding them proves exactly nothing.
“McConchie rises to say that he will be maintaining utter silence throughout this.” Which is a weird thing for a lawyer to say. I suspect his point is that the “expert” isn’t and he is not obligated to treat her as such.
Sidebar: If you feel the oxygen draining from the room it is largely because Faisal Joseph and the Socks have lost and they, and everyone else, know it. I am not saying they won’t win a decision from the BCHRT - that might well happen. But any decision in their favour will be appealled and almost any appeal will be successful.
But it is much worse than that for the Socks - in one hour of cross examination the Dead Sock was proven to be a liar and the Socks lawyer was shown to be clueless and unprepared. In short, as many of us expected would happen, the Socks and their masters have made fools of themselves with full national media attention.
Update 4: McConchie is cross examining. Apparently Faisal Joseph did not provide opposing counsel with Ms. Hirji’s terms of reference and, after so shuffling about, an incomplete file is produced. And so on. We’re running on vapours here. They break early for lunch. The Socks and the Mohammedan legal titan’s case is largely complete and we are really no further enlightened as to what that case actually is save that Macleans published the Steyn piece.
Over at the Covenant Zone truepeers has published a long and well considered reflection on what HRC are and what they might be replaced with. I don’t think they need to be replaced at all but truepeers is well worth reading.
Update 5: Now we have a Koran/Islam expert, Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub. And, just in case you were wondering what the Socks’ goals are they told Dr. Ayoub in his retainer letter, “The letter, which Julian Porter, is quite bald in setting out the complainants’ objectives. “This case is very important to Muslim minorities who are consistently misrepresented in the media.” They cite approvingly the BC human rights legislation. “We anticipate that success in this case will provide the impetus for prohibiting discriminatory publications in the other provinces.” So there you have it.” Coyne
Anyone who was in any doubt as to the Socks anti-free speech agenda should reread “prohibiting discriminatory publications”. Given the insanely broad definition of “discriminatory” used by the HRCs the stakes could not be higher.
Update 6: Coyne reports “Julian Porter to cross-ex. Some Muslims, he acknowledges, especially in the 20th century, have emphasized the “jihad of the sword.” Islam, he notes in passing, does not have a concept of “holy war”: the phrase was invented by Pope Urban II when he was whipping up enthusiasm for the first Crusade.
Porter suggests that the Koran, like the Bible, has both peaceful and violent verses, and that “we have to choose.” Ayoub says the peaceful ones are more prevalent. Says Mohammed had to govern in times of both war and peace. Wonders if Christ had been in the same position, “probably Christians would have been less bloody than they have been.” ”
This is more than a little surreal. These are questions going to whether or not Steyn is right or wrong about Islam but, before the HRC, truth does not matter. Propose that Ayoub said that Steyn was absolutely correct. What would the legal consequence of that be if, in his correctness, he never the less caused offence?
Update 7: Coyne reports “I’ve just noticed Steyn is here.” Hmmm. Officially Mark is not the Respondent and the word has been that he would not be called by Macleans. So why is he in the room?? I wish he’d blog it.
Update 8: Fireworks at last reports Coyne “Faisal Joseph is announcing … they aren’t going to call any more witnesses! They’re not going to call their third and last expert witness, as it would merely repeat previous evidence, he sayd and they’re not going to call Meihir al Habib (I’ll check the spelling later), one of the complainants!
Julian Porter is furious. Then I’m calling al Habib! This is contemptuous of the process, he says, and disgraceful. He should be here to answer having laid the complaint. “I cannot believe” - he’s practically growling - “that they would have the audacity not to expose either one (meaning Elmasry, the other complainant) to cross-examination.”
Now this should be interesting. Pretty much impossible in a real court but, hey, it’s the ‘roos. Porter is taking five minutes to prep. Should be fun. But I wonder if it might not be wiser to simply leave this dog of a case hanging.
Sidebar: As we wait for the Tribunal to resume you have to wonder at the raw incompetence and sheer, brutal arrogance of the Socks and their lawyer. Here they are having jurisdiction shopped their way to BC and now they are refusing to call the witnesses they said they would call. If the ‘Roos had an ounce of self respect they would dismiss the complaint with costs to Macleans.
Update the Last: LOL “Wait! Porter in on his feet: “If Habib and Elmasry are arraid to testify i don’t want them as my witnesses. They’re a pair of scaredy-pants, and…” I swear to God that’s what he said. The proceedings dissolve in even more confusion than usual…”
Cue the Fat Lady….
This “Hearing” was over when Porter stood up to cross examine the Dead Sock. Up until then the Mohammedans could sort of kid themselves along content in the certainty that the ‘Roos would backstop even the worst prepared and presented matter. But Porter has put the fear of Allah into the Socks and the Mohammedan legal titan.
And now he is making fun of them. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if they scampered out to YVR and hopped the first plane back to TO.
Written by jay on June 4th, 2008 with
10 comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized.
- [+] Digg: Feature this article
- [+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
- [+] Furl: Bookmark this article
MarkCh
sjt
jay
dcardno
EBD
Keith Birch
#1. June 4th, 2008, at 10:18 AM.
Jay,
I went to Coyne’s blog and found … pretty much nothing. Do you think he actually may have nodded off for a nap this morning?
More importantly, does this mean that I’ll actually have to get to work today? Better I do, as someone needs to keep paying the salaries of the BCHRC Totalitarian Regime!
Robert W.