Jay Currie

We’re ten minutes away from the theoretical resumption of the Macleans matter. We are now in an unknown country – rarely has a respondent so throughly trashed the pretensions of a claimant so throughly. Rarely has a complainant made such a throughgoing hash of a case even with all the help and thrown decisions the ‘roos have sent Mohammedan legal titan Faisel Joseph’s way.

There is, I fear, the very real danger that the ‘roos will hurl this smelly rag of a case out the side door. I trust that the Dead Sock and Mohammedan legal titan Faisel Joseph will take to the airwaves to denouce the tricky kafir zhoo conspiracy to do them down.

Weenies. If I were a Muslim I would hang my head in shame at what these dolts have done in the name of my religion.

Update 1: 9:45 and no sign of Coyne actually typing…Have the scaredy-pants scarpered? 10:00 AM, not a peep.

Update 2: OK we’re back. Somehow, despite having closed his case, Faisal Joseph is calling Habib who has testified according to Coyne “Joseph is now asking him about the Free Republic blog. How did he come across it. Well, after reading the Steyn article, which he found “concerning,” he went on the internet to “look for any impact.”

I bet he found lots of “impact” at Free Republic. Had he a clue he might have looked at “Free Dominion” which had, up until recently, the great advantage of being located in Canada. The Mohammedan legal eagle must be insane if he thinks an impact in the US has any real bearing in Canada. But, he is before the ‘roos.

Update 2: Coyne is out of power arrrrgh! “We’re working off a printout of a Google search performed today.” Isn’t full and fair disclosure grand. Porter has objected and been overrooed. The ‘roos are going to get the evidence they need in no matter if they have to put it in themselves.

Update 3: Coyne has found the single outlet in the room. Habib has discovered that Free Republic often contains anti Muslim comments – who would have thunk it. As to the article itself, “Habib says he found all this “humiliating… dishonouring… questioning our morality.” Of the original article itself, he said he found the cover shot of women in burkhas “demonizing of Islam,” that it would “make people feel that this what will happen to you if you do not wake up.” The text, he said, was “discriminating, racial, full of hate.” He objects, inter alia, to its use of a quotation from Libyan dictator Muammar Khadahfy, who “has not credibility.” We’ll come back to that.”

Women in burkas “demonizing of Islam”. Well, probably but Macleans didn’t, so far as I know, hire Ford models and a costume designer to stage the pic. It is rather like saying a photo of quaint Amish ladies in their zipperless outfits demonizes the Amish. Habib is reporting his reality which is nice but not terrifically persuasive.

“The article, he says, makes things “dangerous for us.” His wife, who wears the hijab, has been “taunted, told to go back home.” I wonder if that might have happened even without Steyn’s article. Not that such speculation matters a whit to the ‘roos.

Update 4: Coyne has jumped the line and grabbed the outlet “The nature of the CIC as an organization is not an issue in the complaint. Dr. Habib filed the complaint in his own right. Respondents have not established the relevance of the conduct of the CIC.” As good an instance of ‘roo logic as I suspect we are ever going to find. The Brussels Journal is relevant, Free Republic is relevant – The organization of which Dr. Habib and Estmay are directors and which is – apparently – paying the freight for the Socks and the Mohammedan legal titan? Not in the least bit relevant.

Update 5: Great News…Macleans magazine is responsible for what I publish on my blog. “Question: Are you taking the position that a publisher becomes responsible for every blog in the world?

Answer: The publisher is responsible for the content of the magazine. I can’t say whether these people are crazy people.”

Dr. Habib gets it right in the first sentence. A publisher is responsible for the contents of his magazine. But not, frankly, for the reaction to those contents over which that publisher has no control. For example, if, after reading Mark’s piece, I decided to join the obviously winning side and convert to Islam, Macleans can’t be held responsible. This is so obvious it is laughable.

Update 6: Porter has sat down having had something of a political debate with Habib from what I can make out from Coyne. Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph on redirect takes one last shot at total irrelevance:

“Just one question. He goes back to the Brussels Journal. Points out that the post, entitled “Why the future may not belong to Islam,” has a prominently displayed link to Steyn’s book, America Alone.

And he’s done.”

Yup he figures the Hanging ‘roos of the BCHRT are perfectly capable of stringing Macleans up based on comments made on a Belgian blog. And the Hell of the HRC is that he may very well be right. (The funny part about this is that these lamers did not check out Kate, Kathy or, hey, even little old me – we have all published material which is less than cheerleading for Islam and, hey, I blog in BC. In jurisdiction.)