Michael Coren To Human Rights Commissions: Let’s Party

[Edmonton Sun] I know that some people have complained about me to certain commissions, but I also know that the commissions in question have rejected the complaints. Yet as the B.C. Human Rights bunch takes on Maclean’s magazine I am ignored. Why? It can only be because I am a Roman Catholic, half-Jewish, heterosexual, bald Conservative immigrant. It’s offensive, unfair and horribly un-Canadian.

For years now these kangaroo courts — fear not, Australian marsupials are not yet protected under our hate crimes legislation so I’m okay — have gone after relatively anonymous teachers, tradesmen and church ministers who have few resources and limited connections. Come on guys, you’re missing an opportunity here.

The rest.

Calgary Herald: End The Human Rights Commission Farce

[Calgary Herald] All of which leads to this simple question. If the section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that enables all this anti-democratic nonsense is such a dog, why doesn’t the liberty loving Conservative government do something about it? Introduce a bill that simply removes Section 13, end of story.

There’s lots of support. It’s an open secret this comes up every week in caucus, (so the part of the Tory base that thinks their people aren’t trying needs to know that and give them due credit.) The more the story gets out about people like Steyn, or Calgary’s Ezra Levant, or Bishop Fred Henry getting hounded for a pastoral letter to his congregation, the more the general public will be on side.

The rest.

Rabbi Reuven: Sometimes A Free Society Needs To Override Basic Human Rights

Now we get it. All basic human rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Chronicle Herald] Freedom of expression has long been regarded as a core democratic value, if not the core democratic value; but free speech is not an absolute right, and even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for laws to override basic rights if, as Section 1 states, they can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

The rest.

Toronto Star: Freedom Of The Press So Interesting, We Think It Deserves 138 Words

[CP in Toronto Star] The lawyer for an Islamic man says an article published in Maclean’s magazine was hateful and contemptful of Muslims.

Faisal Joseph told a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal panel that the article by Mark Steyn failed to show the vulnerability of the group it focused on – Muslims – failed to show alternative points of view and presented its argument as fact.

Joseph was making his closing submission to the panel.

The rest (only 69 more words to go).

Rights Tribunal Bans Reporting From The Hearing Room – On Last Day Of Hearing

Last live-blog from Andrew Coyne:

There will be no more liveblogging. As I left the courtroom for the lunch break, i was taken aside by a sheepish-looking court official, who said that he’d just learned that I had been “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom. So had I. Broadcasting, I said? I didn’t have a microphone, or a camera.

No, he explained: but liveblogging counts as broadcasting. It’s not the computer that’s the problem. You can type away on it all you want. If you step outside to send it, that’s okay, too. But if you send text from within the courtroom, that’s broadcasting.

Anyway, I gave him my solemn word that I would do no more broadcasting. What with the hearings being almost over and all. It seemed a fitting way to put a cap on the week.

The rest.

Lawyer To Human Rights Tribunal: Mine Is The Best Case In History

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

“There has never been a case in this country that has such clear concise evidence, ever. There will never be a more demonstrable case.”

The rest.

What Would The New York Times Do?

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

[Complainant’s lawyer:] Wants a judgement ordering Maclean’s to publish a counter-argument to the piece, or to publish the tribunal’s decision finding it was promoting hatred.

The rest.

Crack Journalist Nails Down The Essence Of The Story

[Headline] Blog posts cited as evidence Maclean’s article encouraged hatred

[Joe Couture,  Canwest News Service] VANCOUVER – Strong emotions characterized the fourth day of a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an allegedly inflammatory Maclean’s article, as one of the complainants took the stand.

Dr. Naiyer Habib, a physician and the B.C. director of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said the 2006 cover story by Mark Steyn “demonized” Islam and contributed to discrimination.

…

One poster referred to a line in which Steyn compared the growing Muslim population in Europe to mosquitoes, adding “best dust off the DDT to eradicate them.”

Note: Steyn was quoting someone else that made the mosquito comment.

Roll Up For The Mystery Tour

[Vancouver 24 Hours, Ian King] The travelling road show against Maclean’s has reached B.C., and what is unfolding in Courtroom 105 at Robson Square is a funhouse mirror image of a trial.

The rest.

Levant: Canadian Writers/Editors Want Abolishment Of HRC’s Speech Laws

Via Mark Steyn:

[Ezra Levant] I talked a bit about the law, reading out its key sentence. And Noah took a poll of the room: did they support the law, or want to see it abolished? 100% were on the side of freedom. I was impressed — these were, in the main, fancy downtown Toronto culturati. They get it.

The rest.

National Review Interviews Andrew Coyne About Maclean’s Case

NRO: Is there a lot of media scrutiny up in Canada over this case? 

COYNE: It’s been rising as more and more people became aware of the stakes. For a while there wasn’t a lot of coverage, but as time has gone by there’s been more commentary, almost universally condemning the whole nonsense, which is gratifying.

The rest.

Need Evidence For Trial? Google It

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

Joseph is now asking [Habib] about the Free Republic blog. How did he come across it. Well, shorttly after reading the Steyn article in October 2006, which he found “concerning,” he went on the internet to “look for any impact,” ie he Googled it. He found what he was looking for on the Free Republic: the Steyn article, with comments from readers underneath, to the effect that Muslims should be “eradicated,” that they should not be here, etc.

We’re working off a printout of a Google search performed today [June 5, 2008]. Porter [counsel for Maclean’s] is up, pointing out that Google searches produce different results at different times. [Habib] can’t say with certainty that what he saw in October 2006 is the same as it is now.

The rest.

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal: Surprise Evidence OK

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

It seems he is going to call Habib, but first wants to introduce yet another piece of last-minute evidence, and yet another blog post — this one from the California-based “Free Republic” site — which is yet again operated from somewhere in that vast section of the universe outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. McConchie is raising objections, probably futilely.

10:21 AM As indeed they prove.

The rest.

Vatican Radio Picks Up Steyn Story

When Vatican Radio gives a better, more succinct story in two paragraphs than the Canadian press does all year, it reveals a lot.

[Vatican Radio] (05 Jun 08 – RV) In Canada, the British Colombia Human Rights Tribunal is this week holding a hearing against the nation’s most influential newsweekly, MacLean’s Magazine. It is accused of printing an article offensive to Muslims in 2006. The magazine says the case is an infringement on the freedom of the press, and the right to free speech.

The case has brought to national attention the work of the various Human Rights Tribunals in Canada, which do not operate under the standard rules of courts in the country. The Tribunals investigate, prosecute, and hand down verdicts in the cases, and many fear that unpopular speech is being targeted. 

The rest.

Crack BC Journalists Capture The Essence Of The Story

[The Province] Maclean’s article propagated stereotypes, witness tells human rights tribunal

An expert witness testifying before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on its third day Wednesday morning told the panel that the article at the centre of the dispute contains numerous examples of common stereotypes of the Islamic religion and Muslim people.

+

[Vancouver Sun] Islamic expert testifies to inaccuracies in Maclean’s article

One of the world’s foremost religious historians testified before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday to refute what he says are inaccurate portrayals of Islam in an allegedly discriminatory 2006 Maclean’s article.

British Columbia’s Other Tourism Bureau

[Vancouver Sun] When Maclean’s, after devoting considerable space to their side of the issue, politely told them to get stuffed, this gang went shopping for a jurisdiction where they could cause the magazine and Steyn trouble by accusing them of human rights violations. That’s why all these people from Ontario are crowded into a basement room at the Law Courts on Hornby Street arguing over a piece of B.C. legislation.

The rest.

Blogger: Thought Trials Just Need Some Tweaking

Gotcha. And we can assume you’ll pick up the tab for this reality quest?

[Covenant Zone] So, for example, Mark Steyn thinks the reality in Europe is xyz; and saying this sends shivers down the spine of Khurrum Awan. Well, instead of putting on an expensive trial with punitive intent, as if that’s the only way to change minds and retrograde behaviours, why not, when cases merit it, put on a trial whose intent is simply discovery and better articulation of our shared reality?

The rest.

Low-Calorie Free Press

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

2:37 PM We’re going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn’t a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean’s can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as “the Muslim community” gets a right of reply. (I’m paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they’re proposing (he explains in the interview) is anextension of free speech. 

I think I see his point. Every time Maclean’s wants to publish an article some group doesn’t like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean’s – but zero cost to the complainants. That is ”free” speech.

The rest.

Human Rights Tribunal Rules Blogs Relevant Before Reading Them

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

1:42 PM … And we’re back. The tribunal has decided to admit the blogs. The whole wide internet is their domain! They can’t hear complaints about blog posts, but they can take them into consideration in assessing questions of “impact.” Ezra is ecstatic.

Mind you, having admitted them, the tribunal is surprised to discover it hasn’t got ‘em. The printouts, Faisal Joseph informs the panel, are “five minutes away.” Not to self: perform Google Maps search on “Kinko’s.”

The rest.

Anything Goes, Everything’s Relevant

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

[Vancouver, BC, Canada] 11:45 AM The hearing now turns to readings from various blogs I’ve never heard of: The Brussels Journal…

vs.

[Brussels Journal, description on their website] The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.

The Bureaucrat’s Answer To Everything: Did You Fill Out The Paperwork?

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

10:16 AM: …Uh-oh. The chair seems pissed. If you weren’t happy with their disclosure, did you bring an application for further and better disclosure?

+

11:13 AM And we’re back… Chair ruling on McConchie’s relevance and disclosure objections… Admitting the UN report — in its entirety, not the selected passages submitted — but not the other two. The late disclosure is “unfortunate.” Disclosure did not meet rules, and was inadequate. But respondents could have sought further and better disclosure. Respondents’ interests will not be “prejudiced” by it.

The rest.

Note To Bloggers: Are You On Trial Today?

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog of the BCHRT/Maclean’s hearing:

9:36 AM Faisal Joseph up for the complainants. He’s promising to treat us to a tour of some of the seamier parts of the blogosphere. No guilt like guilt by association. He dumped a bunch of material on the Maclean’s side only last night — and apparently some more stuff this morning — which would ordinarily be out of order but not, as by now you will have guessed, here.

The rest.

Expert Legal Opinion

[National Post] “Strict rules of evidence do not apply” in cases before the Tribunal, noted its chairwoman, Heather MacNaughton. A lawyer and a veteran of human rights inquiries, she made the comment yesterday afternoon, when allowing an Ontario law student — yet another non-B. C. resident — to deliver for the complainant testimony about the “Islamaphobic” Steyn excerpt.

The rest.

Canadian Mainstream Media Fires Dud

Headline, Canwest, June 2nd:

Human rights panel hears claim Maclean’s article denigrated Muslims

Now we know how Canwest is going to play it for the rest of the week.

From The Canadian Press, headline:

Canadian Islamic leaders argue “anti-Muslim” article in Maclean’s fostered hatred

Looks like the CP is following the same line.

Human Rights Tribunal: YouTube Comments, Blog Posts Can Be Used As Evidence

What, you thought this would stop with magazines? Why do you think we call this webpage Down With Everybody?

This is about precedent, baby. Get people used to that big, bad net. Shut ’em up good.

From Andrew Coyne’s live-blog on the Maclean’s/British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing:

3:50 PM
Back from a break, as the tribunal members wrestle with yet another ruling on admissibility in the absence of rules of evidence. They’ve decided again to sort-of admit questioning about the “impact,” not of Steyn’s article, but of various, mostly obscure blogs who were allegedly “inspired” by Steyn’s piece. Understand: we’re now to be subjected to the state’s inquisition, not for anything that appeared in the magazine, but for whatever lunatic ramblings might appear anywhere in the blogosphere!

3:58 PM
And of course, as [Maclean’s magazine lawyer] McConchie is pointing out, the tribunal has already ruled that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over internet posts…

3:59 PM
Overruled.

4:10 PM
Now we’re into, not even blogs, but comments left on a YouTube post. Is bathroom grafitti next?

The rest.