Comments on: Tie My Kangaroo Down Coyne

By: maikeru

maikeru — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:39:51 +0000

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.

By: Michael Albert Shaw

Michael Albert Shaw — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:01:27 +0000

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?

By: truewest

truewest — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:19:40 +0000

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.

By: john begley

john begley — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:02:56 +0000

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…

By: Jan

Jan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:51:49 +0000

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).

By: truewest

truewest — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:39:03 +0000

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.

By: Michael Albert Shaw

Michael Albert Shaw — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:12:28 +0000

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.

By: truewest

truewest — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:53:36 +0000

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.

By: Simon Fleischmann

Simon Fleischmann — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:29:24 +0000

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.

By: john begley

john begley — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:25:40 +0000

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…......