The Steyn Follies
(click here for Steyn Follies – Act II – Now that we’ve had lunch…)
As I feared I could not get away from work to go to the Mark Steyn demo/show trial commencing today in Vancouver. Andrew Coyne will be live blogging. As Kathy says, just hit refresh. Kathy herself apparently has an anonymous source in the Hearing Room itself…I can hardly wait.
One of my commentors, truewest, (who may be a lefty but is a smart lefty) suggests that this could all be over in about five minutes with the Tribunal quickly reviewing the complaint against Mark, concluding it falls far short of the Taylor requirements and dismissing the complaint as having no chance of success. (Because there is no Commission in BC, just the Tribunal, this determination cannot be made prior to the Hearing.) While I certainly think this would be the right outcome I would be surprised to the BCHRT act so responsibly. Especially wen they have the chance to grandstand before national media.
I could, of course be wrong.
I will be checking in over the course of the day so comment moderation should be quick.
Update 1: Coyne reports the Chair of the Tribunal is Heather MacNaughton. Lifesite reports that Ms. MacNaughton has a history:
Heather MacNaughton, who chaired the three-panel BC Human Rights Tribunal in the mixed judgement of the Port Coquitlam Knights of Columbus v. two lesbians, is the same Justice who fined Christian printer Scott Brockie and denied an appeal by Christian teacher Chris Kempling.I fear truewest will be disappointed.In 2000, MacNaughton was the adjudicator in the Ontario Human Rights Commission decision against Scott Brockie, a Toronto printer, who was forced to pay $5,000 in damages for refusing to print stationary for The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Brockie, who opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, politely asked the representative of the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives to take their business to another printer in the Toronto area.
MacNaughton also ordered Brockie and his business, Imaging Excellence, to “provide the printing services that they provide to others, to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit.”
Last month, MacNaughton also chaired the BC Human Rights Tribunal when it denied Christian teacher Chris Kempling his complaint of religious discrimination against his employer, the Quesnel School District. Kempling brought the case after he was disciplined by the board for granting an interview to CBC Radio in December, 2003. lifesite
Update 2: Steyn’s lead lawyer is Roger McConchie. He literally “wrote the book” on libel and slander actions in Canada and has specialized in Human Rights matters.
Opposing counsel is Faisal Joseph – the sockpuppets’ sockpuppet. Should be fun.
Update 3: Faisal Joseph is apparently suggesting that s 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code is not about freedom of speech which he apparently refers to as a “red herring”. This will be news to people who rely on Taylor’s s.1 saving of what the Supreme Court clearly saw as an abridgment of free expression.
Except Coyne reports “So he wants the tribunal to order Rogers to publish … something, in the name of “balancing” free speech against the right to be free of discrimination.” so it is about free speech after all. I suspect this is all going to get less coherent from here. Apparently the Islamists also want to bring on a Christian professor of Religious Studies to explain how Mark gets the Koran wrong.
Oh the fun we’ll have.
Update 4: Apparently, in support of his argument that the Macleans articles supported hatred or contempt for Muslims, Joseph is quoting bloggers (list please, did I make the cut?). However one of Coyne’s commentors remarks, “”listing comments posted by anonymous nobodies on the Internet.” Muslim Steynfan….whick of course opens the possibility the Hate Investigation section of the CHRC is on the job…Did he quote a “Lucy” or a “Jadewarr”
Update 5: Coyne writes that “McConchie is pointing out that Elmasry is in fact from Ontario. Does he in fact speak for any aggrieved party in BC?” It should be a rather sound legal argument however, the BCHR Act is so sloppily drafted that the relevant section reads: “21 (1) Any person or group of persons that alleges that a person has contravened this Code may file a complaint with the tribunal in a form satisfactory to the tribunal.” To strange and rather attractive appeal fodder if there really is not BC resident involved in this farce.
Update 5: “It’s kind of a cool defence, when you think of it. The law does not permit us to defend ourselves on the basis of responsible journalism (or anything else, really). But that’s patently unreasonable, so the complainants are actually trying to sneak it back in—to make the issue our journalistic practices, rather than their attempt to silence us. We’re not giving them that opportunity.” It is cool and it is also smart. And it will underscore the fatal collision between s.7’s attempt to punish the publication of anything which might have even the slightest chance of causing offence and the Charter’s s.2 guarantee of free expression and, I might add, freedom of the press.
Apologists for the Human Rights Commissions cite the Supreme Court decision in Taylor. As well as being narrowly decided, Taylor was about a phone in hate message machine. Not “the press” at all. The Steyn matter – with the Sockpuppet’s absurd demand to take over Macleans – is all about freedom of the press as well as free expression. Assuming that it goes to the SCC that is the issue the Court will have to grapple with before considering if the abridgment of such freedom can be saved by s. 1.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“who may be a lefty but is a smart lefty”
Contradicting mutually exclusive terms.
The “smart” thing for th fascist twinkies on this star chamber would be to cut their losses and protect their cozy hurt feelings racket,by tossing the case….but they won’t.
The head “roo” is a stilted ideologue social engineer, True to the creed MacNaughton can’t help herself…her reflexive instinct to parade her phony morality in public with a “landmark” case for the race baiting industry.
This will go the legitimate courts, thank god, where the SCC Alberta press reference will dethrone the provincial HRCs from ever having jurisdiction over the media.
.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Jay,
I confess I’m surprised that Macleans didn’t bring an application to dismiss, but perhaps there are strategic reasons for this. As Coyne points out, there are advantages to losing at the HRT and winning in court, particularly with respect to any finding that the speech section is unconstitutional.
That said, I think it’s unlikely that Macleans will lose, despite the doomsaying of the knuckledraggers and Mark Steyn.
A couple of additional points:
Roger McConchie does NOT specialize in human rights cases; he’s a defamation and media lawyer. (As is Julian Porter)If he ends before the HRT (which he has done a handful of times), it’s usually because of one of his media clients. And he did not “write the book” on libel and slander. He wrote a book on libel and slander, one that, while it has it strengths, takes a backseat to Raymond Brown’s four volume text on the subject.
On the law side, I wish you and the other folks on the free speech absolutist side of this debate would stop defining these provisions as banning speech that “offends” people. It’s a mischaracterization of the law that verges on dishonesty. As the majority in Taylor made clear, provisions like s. 13 of the CHRA and s. 7 of the BC Act limits only the most extreme sort of hate speech, not speech that merely offends. If mere “offence” were the standard, the commissions would be flooded with complaints from all quarters, including all the knuckledraggers who are offended that some CBC reporters have never heard of Mark Steyn.
BTW, your notion that Taylor doesn’t apply to “the press” because the case dealt with a phone-messages and not, magazines and newspapers is, well, just plain wrong. S. 2 protects expression, including freedom of the press, which is recognized as a particular form of expression, but not one distinct from the others. While courts may recognize particular press interests from time to time—the right to protect sources or the responsible journalism defence to libel—the “press” gains no greater protection from s.2 than any schlub on the street.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
> ‘If mere “offence” were the standard, the commissions would be flooded with complaints from all quarters, including all the knuckledraggers…’
Could be. Or maybe the reasons the HRCs’ workload remains manageable is that certain religious groups know full well they are wasting their time complaining about crucifixes submerged in urine or novels that accuse them of wanting to enslave women, because they’ll be told to go away and put up with it.
In other words, maybe the reason the “knuckledraggers” don’t go knocking on the HRCs’ door is not that the bar is set too high for everyone, but that it’s set very low for their ideological opponents… both those who are far more libertine and those who are far more theocratic.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 am
Currie commenting on Coyne on a legal proceeding. truly the blind reading the blind.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
Is that you, Johnny Maudlin? Hate to think there is that much stupidity in the world to make two of you…
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 am
I always admire brave people who do the old drive by smear under cover of “Anonymous”. Takes real guts.
Of course it could be the Lying Jackal.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am
Drop the shoe, Jay! Pray tell what did Faisal say Section 7 (1) “is” about? Perhaps he intends to call it not exactly “speech”, free or otherwise, but something a bit more arcane. Keep us posted.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 am
Gerald, I have to rely on Coyne’s somewhat cryptic live blogging but, apparently, s.7.1 “prohibiting exposure to hate.”
Go figure…And it is an honour having you comment here.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
I fear truewest will be disappointed.
And, proven not to be clairvoyant or not as acquainted with niceties as he may think he is. :-)
Jay, from my read, the BCHRT could have made a determination to dismiss at any time after receiving the complaint. They chose not to dismiss it outright so I am not surprised that Mr. Coyne is beginning to sweat having to be contained in a cramped, airless, waterless room all week.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/3p9b4g
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 am
PS - I’m willing to kick in a few bucks for a keyboard.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 am
Isn’t to-day June 2 /2008?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
Bocanut, you have a point but we here at Currie are coming to you live from tomorrow. (And will be until I can figure out how to fix the WP date/time thing.)
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Isn’t the BCHRC legislation Provincial, why is Elmasry allowed to HRC shop and file complaints in a province he is not a resident? I don’t understand why a non-resident is allowed to avail himself of a service that’s Provincial not Federal? Why oh why is he allowed to do this? Can someone from India file a complaint provincially with any HRC in Canada? Elmasry’s lawyer’s assertion that his Muslimness is legitimate basis for him pontificating he represents anonymous Muslims all over Canada and BC is hilarious.
His ego gets bigger by the hour, I’m a Muslim ergo I represent all aggrieved Muslims in BC, it doesn’t matter if I don’t live in that fair province I have given myself the powers of Allah.