The Steyn Follies - Intermission 3 - The Fat Lady Warms Up
It was a long and wonderfully irrelevant day in the basement of the ‘Roos. Tyro scholars and really rather eminent scholars of Islam were paraded before the ‘Roos as the Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph, tried to recover from the fact his chief witness was proven a liar on cross examination.
Towards the end of the day Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph, decided he’d stop digging his own, private, hole and announced he would call no more witnesses. Which meant that the ostensible complainant in the case against Macleans would not take the stand. Julian Porter, QC - in so far as this is possible for a QC - went ballistic. He threatened to call the complainant himself and he pointed out to the ‘roos “How bad this looks” and then there was an adjournment and, when they came back, another adjournment. But not before Julian Porter, QC said according to the long suffering Andrew Coyne, “If Habib and Elmasry are afraid to testify I don’t want them as my witnesses. They’re a pair of scaredy-pants.”
This Hearing is over.
Oh sure, there may be final arguments and there might even be a bit more testimony; but, realistically, we’re done. We’re done because the Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph is so stupid, so marvelously out of his depth, that he does not realize just how ridiculous a Complaint without a complainant looks and is. Porter’s ritual slaughter of the Dead Sock scared the ostensible complainant so badly it is clear he is unwilling to subject himself to the same slice and dice. Without him, Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph has nothing but the evidence of a now self-confessed lying Sock and a good deal of entirely irrelevant academic testimony some of which cuts Steyn’s way.
Even the ‘roos are not dumb enough to find for the complainant on this thin legal gruel. The Fat Lady is in the wings, it is now a matter of exit strategy.
Which is grand news for Macleans, not so good news for those of us who want to see an end to the ‘roos’, federal and provincial, supervision of speech in Canada. If Macleans wins here there will be no appeal and no chance for the SCC to revisit and overturn the decision in Taylor which the HRC fascists cling to as allowing them to abridge free speech and freedom of the press.
Now, and here I am clutching at straws, it is possible that the ‘roos will ignore the fact that Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph has presented a pup of a case and that his chief witness is a liar and rule against Macleans because they feel like it and Barbara Hall has blazed a trail. And there is also the faint hope of the CHRC matter being decided against Macleans; but that seems unlikely based on the sheer stupidity, absence of preparation and willingness to lie the Socks have demonstrated in BC.
No, Julian Porter, QC has put the fear of Allah into the Socks and their supporters. He has earned every cent of his retainer and, I’m afraid, he is going to win and win big. If the ‘roos had any sense at all they would assess costs against the Socks and Mohammedan legal titan, Faisal Joseph as they threw this piece of crap into the Robson Street gutter.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Jay, Jay, Jay. How many times do we have to be reminded that reasoned argument and justifying fact, or even a complainant appearance are irrelevant to this HRC decision.
The complainants say they were fightened/offended and opened to “likely” hatred and this statement of complaint is documented on an HRC filing..they do not have to appear to defend this..the respondents have to prove the claims are wrong…which they haven’t, and can’t, because how can you prove what MAY happen to someone in the future as a result of what you said?...how can you prove they are not offended? You can’t!...the case is a lock from the requirements of the HRC act. The ad hoc process is window dressing to give the appearance of a chance for the respondent.
This case was decided by Babs and the OHRC in her statement…the trial is just show.
As I said, the BC ‘roos will find guilt…they can do no less with what they have from the statute and the complaint…they will soften the penalty but they will decide for the socks and probably scold Macleans in a public statement.
The process was the punishment. The stigmatization as a official HRC designated “hater” is the object.
On to a constitutional appeal that the BC ‘roos know will have nothing to do with their decision anyway, so best get a good barb in at Mclean’s and the serial “hater” Steyn, before they send them off on their inevitable appeal journey…they know the ruling is largely stigmatization and will not be overturned, it is the process which will be over turned in appeal.
You have to think like a ideologue ‘roo on this Jay, not with any reason and technical legal logic. This Tribunal deals in “symbolism and official “message sending”..not law.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Oh, FFS, “long and suffering Andrew Coyne”?? He’s a journalist getting paid to cover one of the more interesting political events of the year. If he can’t manage to find something like this interesting (which is entirely possible given how poorly he’s live blogging the event), then he needs to hang up his keyboard and switch careers. Yes, Andrew, I WOULD like some fries with that.
“Even the ‘roos are not dumb enough to find for the complainant on this thin legal gruel.”
Yes, they are. If they had any marketable skills they sure as hell wouldn’t be working at the BCHRC. They’d be alongside Coyne at Mickey D’s serving me fries.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:35 am
p.s. If you want “long and suffering” make your living cleaning up after Bill Gates. Having to support Windows Vista is on par with working with abused animals and children in terms of the levels of emotional distress involved.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I took a look at the Globe Article regarding Mark Steyn’s comments about the BCHRT. I think Steyn is doing his part to keep this thing moving into the courts…his comments are a challenge to the Tribunal, and to the panellists. Given his comments that they are “pretend judges”, he is daring them to find against MacLean’s.