Tie My Kangaroo Down Coyne
Just a head’s-up: I’ll be live blogging the case of Mohamed Elmasry vs. Mark Steyn/Maclean’s before (sigh) the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, direct from kangaroo-courtroom 105 of the Robson Square Provincial Court building in Vancouver, starting sometime after 9:30 Pacific/12:30 Eastern Monday morning and going on for, I don’t know, days. Just hit refresh.All the dense legalese, with twice the politically correct jargon! andrew coyne
I don’t know if work is going to let me get across the Strait – but Coyne should be droll on the lunacy before the BC Tribunal.
Coyne is the “A” Team. Between this and the putative Parliamentary Inquiry things are looking rather dim for the s. 13 mongers. Once Coyne gets dug in, MSM will have very little choice but to take an interest.
Meanwhile, the blogging Army of Davids will get to work. The poor staffers of the MPs on the Justice Committee are going to be so well briefed it will scare them.
The fact is that the free speech blogosphere has developed a fair degree of expertise as to the assorted corruptions of the CHRC and its investigators. We know the lies under oath and the witnesses who have never actually been called – think Stacey’s guide girl.
The “there were no rules to break” culture of the pseudo-Nazi hunters at the CHRC needs to be exposed for the fascist enterprise which it has degenerated into. The bloggers who have been following the cases in detail will give the staffers and the MPs all the material they need. The problem, of course, is that these folks will find it hard to believe that senior managers lied under oath or that investigators, without even a pale colour of right, flat out refused to answer questions on cross-examination. They need to be schooled.
While we are indeed winning, we have not won. The rule of law is not complicated; but an agency which can “redact” just because it feels like it will fight back hard. For free speech to win we have to build an air tight case, with examples, of the fundamental corruption of the CHRC. And, beyond that, we have to build the case that the statute itself leads to this corruption. This is not something that a bit of staff training (“No Dean, really, you do have to take notes and answer questions….No, really Dean, that’s the law.”) will fix.
This is a war which can be won but it will be won by a combination of MSM coverage, political pressure, ridicule and hard core fact-finding. The facts fit into an argument and that argument is that the nature of s. 13 virtually ensures that it is impossible to obtain justice before the CHRT or in an investigation by the CHRC.
If there is no possibility of justice, if innocence is not an option, it is the law rather than the accused which is at fault.
Which is what we must teach the good Members of the Justice Committee.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
If they ever meet. They’ve been deadlocked since April.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Frig Coyne…why isn’t the Post, Globe, CTV and CBC broadcasting live and live and front page reporting this monumental case?
This is as big as the Alberta press reference case in the 30s.
Why?
When did free speech and a free press become so boring to the MSM?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I hope to find a way down there and participate in a Vancouver demonstration that’s pro-freedom for a change.
I think Mike of The London Fog put it best when he said that in a more sane Canada, Ezra Levant would be representing the right, and Marc Emery the left.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
It seems good that everyone be open to hearing such lessons as they may need to learn by spoken or written persuasion. For when speaking and writing are disallowed, what persuasions remain?
June 1st, 2008 at 1:49 am
What we need is a version of Groklaw (www.groklaw.net) for the HRCs. And nobody look at me about building this. Yes I can, but I’m somewhat slammed with running three different businesses (PC repair, sign making, photography) and trying to find time for family in between all of this.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:13 am
I don’t see why an entrepreneur who sought to profit by the distribution of a highly-valued product should “represent the left,” Jay.
;)
June 1st, 2008 at 4:34 am
I’m afraid this “monumental case” is likely to be rather anti-climactic. If Macleans is represented by competent counsel, they’ll open by making an application to dismiss the claim as having no reasonable chance of success. (Since they spiked the Commission, pretty much everything goes to hearing in BC). And since Steyn’s ramblings may be bigoted nonsense, but fall well short of the Taylor standard, I expect they’ll get their dismissal.
Not that this will stop folks like Jay and Blazingcatturds from spreading misinformation and outright lies, but it will be a step in the right direction.
btw, Redux,
suggesting that this is a big as the Alberta Press Act reference suggests that you don’t know a damn thing about the Alberta Press Act Reference. For one thing, this puppy is going nowhere near the SCC.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
what misinformation and outright lies are you referring to please..?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:16 am
and i can hear an ax being ground…so speak up if you’d be so kind…
June 1st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Whatever would make you conclude such a thing, TW?
Are we to learn that the Tribunals in BC are mere pikers in the Human Rights game? Can they not compete with the likes of the disappointed Barbara Hall who given her tribunal druthers would have nailed the Macleans/Steyn ass to the proverbial wall.
I’m disappointed in the extreme to know that you have such little faith in the left coast’s administration of the Canadian Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.
Woe betide the state of our country if we Canadians no longer entitled to equal treatment from coast to coast to coast? For shame!
June 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Jan,
I conclude that because I know the law well enough to understand that Steyn may be an asshole, but his natterings don’t amount to hate under the law. I also understand that Barbara Hall can comment on Steyn’s ramblings as part of her commission’s mandate to educate and inform the public even if the legislation doesn’t grant the tribunal the right to hear a complaint. Of course, if you’d prefer to ignore the legal niceties and continue to wallow in rhetoric, that’s your right. Knock yourself out, but I hope you’re not disappointed (as I suspect Steyn might be) if this thing gets tossed.
John,
The misinformation and lies promulgated include – that a member of CHRC committed perjury – that Richard Warman made the Cools post – that CHTC staff hijacked a secure wireless connection – that there’s a 100 percent “conviction” rate for s. 13 complaints under the CHRA
Incidentally, the axe being ground belongs to the proprietor of this site and to hysterical knuckledraggers like Redux. But thanks for your advice
June 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
still waiting here truewest
...please enlarge on your accusation or repudiate same…i think it’s reprehensible behaviour on your part to lead well meaning people on with scurrilous charges that have no foundation in fact..if you find the points made in jay’s argument unpalatable and can only counter them with red herrings and impugning his character perhaps you should examine the case to hand more fully and refrain from piping up til your comprehension and understanding are rather more evolved…......
June 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Hello John Begley:
Don’t swaet Truewest’s bizarre and completely unqualified screed.
John, I have heard from vredible medical sources in the past that being hung like a bumblebee can impact enormously upon the adult male’s general behaviours. metinks maybe Trueswest is “working off soem karma” or, as you say, grinding an axe that has nothing to do with you. Chill and count your blessings. There but for the grace of etc.
Pity Truewest and its ilk.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 am
John,
As you may now be aware, there’s a some lag-time between the time a post is made and the time it appears on this site. I answered your query long before you posted here self-righteous and ridiculous attack. I won’t hold my breath for an apology.
As for Simon Fleischmann, I note only that he has displayed his ignorance elsewhere on this site and reinforces it with his post here. But then, the high school years are difficult for many – especially the time around of the prom—so perhaps his ill-temper can be explained, if no excused.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 am
I must object to Jan’s comments implying the B.C. Human Rights Commission is like the Inquisition. That is so totally unfair – to the Inquisition. The Inquisition, also known as the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, did conduct trials in Spain (the Spanish Inquisition) to root out Heretics and Apostasy at the behest of the Spanish Monarchy but most of these trials resulted in acquittals.
Anybody who thinks MacLeans Magazine will be acquitted by the B.C.H.R.C. has probably been smoking too much B.C. bud. Anyway I shall be at 800 Hornby Street at 08:00 tomorrow 2 June wearing my yellow “SUPPORT THE CANUCK-6” T-shirt but I must hide my copy of America Alone from the thought police.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 am
Mr Shaw,
Your post might be a trifle more credible if you were aware that there is no longer any such BC Human Rights Commission. Perhaps you mean the BC Human Right Tribunal, which is hearing a complaint against Macleans starting Monday.
The difference between a human rights tribunal and a human rights commission is significant and if you don’t understand it, perhaps you should either do a little research or stick to selling railway tickets, which I see is your day job.
I won’t trouble you with the further difference between a human rights complaint and a libel action. Best to start with baby steps.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 am
Michael Albert Shaw, I stand corrected and make my apologies to the Inquisition.
TW, I wonder why the BCHRT did not follow your nice advice, thus saving a lot of time and money, in the process?
Human Rights Code
Dismissal of a complaint
27.
(1)A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the following apply:
(a)the complaint or that part of the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal;
(b)the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint do not contravene this Code;
(c)there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
(d)proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not
(i)benefit the person, group or class alleged to have been discriminated against, or
(ii)further the purposes of this Code;
(e)the complaint or that part of the complaint was filed for improper motives or made in bad faith;
(f)the substance of the complaint or that part of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding;
(g)the contravention alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was filed unless the complaint or that part of the complaint was accepted under section 22 (3).
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 am
oh….a time warp is all….i was so worried for a bit..
at any rate your defence doesn’t cut it..
1…some member of the CHRC somewhere committed perjury….this hasn’t been proven in a court of law but of course as you well know the CHRC isn’t a court of law.
2..if warman didn’t post the cools post then one of his amis did….and anyway the cools post is simply pathetically chauvinist..there are far FAR worse proven insults to our society that are openly admitted to by the CHRC employees…
3..i don’t think there’s any doubt a wireless connection’s use was illegally appropriated…by the CHRC..
4..and if there IS’NT a 100% conviction rate then it must be hovering around 92% which is far and away the scariest odds i’ve seen since judge jeffries wielded a gavel.
all of which tells me you don’t really have an effective argument in your defence of the CHRC…
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Babble on, John, babble on.
1) This recalls the response of the judge is Sweeney Todd when asked if the 12-year-old he’d sentenced to death was guilty of the crime for which he was charged. “Well, if he wasn’t guilty of that, he was guilty of something.
2) Again, if Warman didn’t someone else at the CHRC did. You have no proof to support that, but then you never do.
3) You don’t think there’s any doubt. But, oops, no evidence. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy and virgin birth, as well.
4) Most human rights complaints don’t make it to hearing. In order to figure the rate of successful complaints, you have to count those.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Oops, sorry I stand corrected in my use of nomenclature (commission or tribunal, whatever) and the only thing I know about libel law is the way a Toronto lawyer explained it to me. “The greater the truth the greater the libel.” Even the complaint about the MacLeans article does not dispute the facts published. They just wish to commandeer the resources of a private news magazine and silence Mark Steyn and it is my belief that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is more than likely to grant their wish. In the unlikely event that they do not the Canadian Human Rights Tribual will. Double jepardy anyone?
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
truewest wrote:
” I conclude that [since Steyn’s ramblings may be bigoted nonsense, but fall well short of the Taylor standard, I expect they’ll get their dismissal.] because I know the law well enough to understand that Steyn may be an asshole, but his natterings don’t amount to hate under the law.”
Such statements are as ill-informed and ‘hateful’ as they are foul-mouthed and ‘contemptuous’.
BCHRT ‘law’ that Steyn is up against was established a decade ago
with Abrams v Collins.
If Steyn is ‘let off’ this time around, Macleans will be closely monitored – particularly Steyn articles – and another ‘Complaint’ laid ASAP. There’s no downside for Complainants, however far removed from their own neighbourhood.
The outcome of that future hearing will be:
“Individually, and taken out of context, each of the
(however many) columns at issue might not convey messages that meet the high threshold that is necessary to be considered hatred
or contempt within the meaning of s. 7(1)(b) of the Code.
However, collectively they do.”
That’s the point at which things were left a decade ago due the death of Mr. Collins – the then 81 year old Respondent – prior to Appeals being heard.
Little is known of that case outside of BC, which is why the Complainants are in for a rougher ride than they may have imagined.
This time around, the BCHRT is coming under a scrutiny undreamed of by the ‘educated idiots’ who concocted, interpret and enforce Canada’s misnamed ‘Human Rights’ laws.