Jay Currie

While Mr. Coyne is off to lunch and, I suspect, a shower pop over to Kathy’s for up to the minute coverage of the mighty ignorance of CBC “journalists” sent to cover the Steyn matter who were too late to get into the too small room where it is being held. Over a billion a year and these bozos don’t know who Mark is.

Keith Martin is in the House, “”I just returned from the Canadian Association of Journalists AGM in where I attended a debate with a member of the CHRA. After the debate it became even more obvious that the Act needs to be modernized. The CHRA member had little understanding of the deep flaws and misuses of the Act by the Commission and the trampling of free speech that the Commission sometimes engages in,” said Dr. Martin. press release at Mark Steyn

Coyne is back and now blogging here

Update 1: Coyne reports: ” we’re walking through another passage—which Faisal Joseph notes is particularly significant—in which Steyn particulalry disavows any suggestion that his concerns attach to all Muslims, but rather that the trends he observes prevail in “enough” of the Muslim population of Europe to be worrisome. This strikes me as eminently arguable—but whether it is or not, it is just surreal in a free and democratic society to be calling in a government panel to decide it.” What is amusing about this is that a couple of posts before Khurrum Awan (the male sockpuppet now on the stand) was saying that Steyn did not sufficiently distingish between the different types of Muslims and now sockpuppet counsel is pointing to a passage in which Steyn does exactly this.

I suspect it will only get whackier as the day and week goes on.

Update 2: Says Ezra: “So far, that testimony has been—well, exactly what you’d expect from a junior grievance-monger in training. He’s just been reading through Steyn’s excerpt, and disagreeing with it. It’s even weaker than his appearance on TVO; a stream of illogical connections; tangents; paranoia; and plain old whining.

In other words, it is the meat of Faisal’s argument. This isn’t a legal case. This is a political case. Maclean’s and Steyn have committed political offences. And thus they must pay a political price.”

Update 3: Julian Porter has just raised a territorial objection to Awan’s report of his feelings as he read Steyn in TO. It was, according to Coyne, overruled without reasons. I suppose the logic being that if the Tribunal allows Awan – a non-British Columbia resident and not the complainant – to testify at all it should not be too picky about where he had his feelings. This might make sense before the CHRC - but the CHRC has no jurisdiction over print, just the net, so the Socks had to bring a complaint before a tribunal which had, or claims, print jurisdiction. Never you mind that its territorial jurisdiction – as a creature of provincial statute – is, well, the Province of British Columbia.

Update 4 Coyne reports that Roger McConchie is using a legal argument (the bastard) to prevent the Socks from introducing prior Macleans articles to somehow contextualize the Steyn piece which is the actual subject of the complaint. The socks want to claim some sort of hostile enviornment and Roger McConchie is having none of it.

Of course a legal argument has nothing to do with the theraputic intent of the BCHRT so I suspect the entire history of Macleans coverage of Muslims, minorities, women and First Nations will be dragged in.

Update 5: Prior articles ruled inadmissible, articles from the date of the Steyn piece are admissible – presumably as going to the effects of the original article though that does not make a whole Hell of a lot of sense. The kangaroo remains in his cage for the moment.

Update 6: Ezra reports: “This is interesting. Khurrum Awan admits that they demanded to have a submission “of equal length and prominence”.

So… that would basically mean the cover story. Again, something they’ve denied in their media spin to date.

I’m impressed that Awan is telling the truth now—confirming what Ken Whyte has claimed all along.”

The confirmation of the Ken Whyte version along with the confirmation that Socks also demanded money puts the entire BCHRT Hearing into the category of blackmail enforcement proceeding. Decent people would call it right here and go home with an admonition to the Socks never, ever to try this sort of stunt again.

Update 7: Again from Ezra who just rocks at the liveblogging thing, “Awan just testified about what another one of the sock puppets—Muneeza is her name, I think—had said to Ken Whyte. She is sitting a few feet away here, too—not as a complainant, not as an expert, not as a witness.

So we’ve got Awan giving hearsay evidence of what Muneeza said to Ken Whyte—all of which happened in Toronto.”

I mean it is not as if the Islamists are self-represented. Faisal Joseph is a former Crown Prosecutor.

Update 8: If what we have seen so far today is any indication the Macleans team are going to “box smart” and let the Islamists dig their own hole. To a degree, as they showed up, the Islamists have carriage of the case – unlike the situation before the CHRT where the CHRC will effectively act for a missing complainant. And that means they have to lead evidence supporting their claim. So far all they have managed to establish is that some guy in Ontario read Mark Steyn’s article in Macleans and got the vapours. (Which, unfortunately, may be enough to have the BCHRT rule in favour of the Islamists – but would be laughed out of Court on Appeal.) Other than cross-examination which I suspect will be through, professional and entirely demoralizing, it is not clear the lawyers from Macleans will even need to put on a case (or, for that matter given the paucity of defences available, have a case to put on). At the end of the complainant’s case distinguished counsel would simply rise, say the complainant rests and respectfully asks that this matter be dismissed forthwith.

Update 9: Ezra again: “Awan is telling the kangaroo court—apropos of nothing—about the negative public reaction that he and his fellow mini-fascists received after filing their complaint against Maclean’s.”

Damn straight. In fact, I am proud to say, I was absolutely delighted to make fun of the barristers in short pants. So were most righty and a few lefty bloggers, assorted columnists, the Editorial Boards of several major newspapers, Rex Murphy and so on. And as Ezra points out that was a useful and very healthy response to an asinine bit of asshattery from people who should have, by virtue of their education, have known better.

The transcript is going to be priceless. And we are not even to cross-examination yet.

Update 10: I said it was going to get whackier and I was right – Ezra who has his laptop – relates that the Sockpuppet on the stand and the Sockpuppet mouthpiece are now trying to get the TVO show where the Socks were schooled by Steyn, and the comments on the TVO website, admitted as “evidence”.

This is beyond silly as the TVO show is, well, completely irrelevant to a complaint about Macleans magazine. And it illustrates just what a lousy case the Socks have. If they are already scraping this barrel they have nothing. Which does not mean they can’t win before the BCHRT. Because so long as they have their hurt feelings, apparently anywhere in Canada, the BCHRT is there to help.

What we are seeing, hour by hour, is the case being made for the abolition of s. 7 of the BCHRA and s. 13 of the CHRA.

Update 11: Again from Ezra: Julian Porter continues to make objections to Faisal Joseph’s ambush submissions of blogs and Internet comments, such as Five Feet of Fury and TVO online comments.

Porter did not receive any copies of same in advance. Again, in a real court, that would be laughed out of the court house. But this isn’t a real court.

Porter made objections. He said those blogs and comments, made in mid-2008, in specific response to the CIC’s own embarrassing antics, had nothing to do with a specific article published in Maclean’s in late 2006. He objected to the lack of jurisdiction of the BCHRT, which doesn’t cover the Internet.”

Faisal Joseph continues to deliver hostages to fortune. Porter rounds them up by objecting and, with luck, keeps having his objections over-ruled. Fairly quickly an appellant brief sort of assembles itself. At some point, the BCHRT’s rather cavalier attitude towards the rules of evidence and the idea that submissions have to have at least some connection to the matter complained of will move the conduct of the Tribunal itself into the sights of the Courts. And that is without any constitutional challenge.