The Steyn Follies - 4th Intermission - Overrooed
The ‘roos went for the really big finish today. They allowed in a Google search done a hour before the “Hearing” commenced and simply dropped on the respondents table en passant. They allowed in blog entries and comments from a Belgian blog and Free Republic (an American Blog). They were happy to entertain testimony from the “complainant” in the case about his exploration of the internet in the wake of the Steyn piece searching for “impact”.
But they overooed Porter’s attempts to bring up questions about the Canadian Islamic Congress of which Dr. Habib, the complainant, is apparently a director and which is, apparently funding the Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph and the Socks.
The ‘roos want a win here and the fact Joseph has put on one of the worst cases they have ever seen is not going to stop them. I think it safe to say that Julian Porter, QC’s final argument tomorrow will not divert the ‘roos from their verdict.
Basically, if Barbara Hall can convict without jurisdiction and without a hearing, the ‘roos seem to take it as a matter of personal pride that they will be able to convict by extending their jurisdiction to the known universe and having presided over a pure farce dressed up as a hearing.
Which, frankly, is perfect. The ‘roos have amply demonstrated exactly how legally illiterate, procedurally bereft and fundamentally biased they are. With the able assistance of the Mohammedan legal titan, if they convict they will have proven that no matter what, any piece of manure tossed in their direction will result in the complainant winning.
And that will leave Macleans no choice but to proceed to Appeal and, with luck, all the way to the Supreme Court to reverse Taylor.
Meanwhile there is enough media attention on this matter that even the dullest CPC MP is beginning to notice that there might be something wrong with the entire HRC system when it comes to regulating speech. But Ezra is right when he says we have to do more:
“I received a phone call from an MP’s office last weekend, telling me that his office received 60 letters about human rights commissions in a single day after I put his e-mail address on this site. An MP’s office that received 60 letters a month on a particular issue would likely be that office’s hottest topic. So keep at it!
You can find your MP’s e-mail address here. Go to it! ”
June 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
What’s interesting is that Taylor really does have some fairly narrow parameters for hate speech and, in the wording the justices used, imply that truth and intent might be defences, since they talk about hatred, calumny (another word for lying, no?) and villification and a consistent pattern of it.
This is what is so contradictory about the Justice Dept.’s disgraceful brief. On one hand truth is no defense, they argue, since the law is concerned with effects, not the intent of the hater, but then they use words like pattern of hatred which speaks to motive and intent (not hurt feelings in my reading) and calumny which speaks of lies.
Of course I no longer want to see the government as the arbiter of truth.
God forbid that we should have Trooth.
Deborah
June 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Jay: excellent meta-blogging. Ezra’s absence meant that I had that much less to read instead of working, and you helped me not work for a precious few extra minutes.
Anyways, Ive checked out Taylor briefly a while back when this whole thing started. You and Deborah are quite correct to suggest that the SC declared s. 13 constitutional using s. 1 of the Charter, but that was based on an understanding that s. 13 would be applied to only the most egregious of cases. Anyways, I forget whether Taylor attacked s. 13 with s. 7 of the Charter as well. In any event, there is no question that s. 7 – life, liberty and security may only be deprived in accordance with the rules of fundamental justice.
Fundamental justice is generally understood to mean procedural fairness. So, I dont need to elaborate with you guys that Steyn’s liberty is about to take a beating, and that procedural fairness was nowhere to be seen. Anyways, another way to attack s. 13, or at least get a discrete remedy for Steyn when the conviction comes.
On that point, after yesterday I was doubtful that the conviction would come. Today I am certain of it – remember, this is what we need.
Keep at it. There are no words to describe the insanity which is happening, and the carelessness with which the ‘roos are trampling over our rights.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
If you ever want to read a careless, tangled, contradictory, totalitarian steaming pile, read Brian Dickson’s reasons for judgment in Keegstra, which was released concurrent to Taylor in 1990 and for which he basically said the same reasons apply for both.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:17 am
The logic of this “law” is interesting if applied to 9/11.
9/11 was a big terrorist attack by extremist Muslims. Reporting this fact could easily result in Islamophobic attacks on Muslims. I live in Europe and somebody here tried to burn down the local mosque after 9/11. Clearly reporting Islamic involvement in the terrorist attack is “likely” to expose Muslims to contempt. It could potentially be illegal under section 13.
The various lunatic fringe conspiracy theories about 9/11 say that George Bush carried out the attacks in a variety of incredibly devious and undetectable ways. Clearly this theory would not be likely to expose Muslims to contempt. It would not be illegal under section 13.
The logic of section 13 seems to me to be that the reality of 9/11 could be illegal, yet the “troofer” lunacies should not be.
Time to ditch this law and wind up the kangaroo courts.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:58 am
I sent a letter to the PM (CC’d it to my MP, the Justice Minister, the oppositon, etc.) on April 4, 2008.
I just received this letter from Mr. Nicholson on June 5, 2008:
Dear Ms. XXXXXXXXX:
The office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). I regret the delay in responding.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, in a free and democratic society, may be limited only when such an action is justified.
The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. To that end, the Government has introduced in Parliament Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which calls for the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to apply equally to all Canadians. Bill C-21 would repeal section 67 of the CHRA, which currently shields some actions of the federal government or First Nations entities from the application of the CHRA. The repeal of section 67 would extend the rights of First Nations people, primarily those living on reserve, to file complaints with the CHRC.
Canada’s record on human rights is second to none; it is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.
As you may be aware, the CHRC, which administers the CHRA, operates at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and reports to Parliament independently.
However, I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.
Please be assured that your concerns have been given proper consideration. I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.
Yours truly,
The Honourable Rob Nicholson
June 6th, 2008 at 6:08 am
I also wrote a letter to the editor today of our city’s only local newspaper (The London Free Press). They have printed zilch on the entire issue (unless I’ve missed something). Ditto for our local TV station here.
I’m not expecting the Freeps to print it; since editor Larry Cornies left (was ousted – or whatever), my letters go ignored (previously they printed nearly all of them – and there were lots).
What I wrote:
It is ironic to me that the London Free Press, with the word “Free” in its title, reports absolutely nothing about the current “trial” underway at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, aka Kangaroo Court. Macleans magazine is essentially being persecuted for refusing to turn over editorial control to a special interest group, so the magazine is being sued under Section 13 (hate crimes). Taxpayers must cover the complainants’ costs, but respondents must pay their own legal fees, even if the respondents win. But since Section 13 has a 100 percent conviction rate – and truth is no defence to this “crime” – that’s irrelevant. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are in danger of disappearing in this country. My question: When will the Free Press live up to its title, while it still can?
June 6th, 2008 at 6:38 am
I’m glad to see you starting to see this ‘roo fest for what it is Jay, and not what some “smart assed lefty” tells you it is.
When you get that fetid stench in your nostrils, chances are there’s shite near by, and there is a great big steaming heap of Turtle Bay activist poop festering in that BCHRT court room.
Always trust your nose when dealing with cultural marxism’s ahem, “fallout”.