Posted on 06/02/2008 10:39:03 AM PDT by Dutchgirl
I am posting the first few postings from Andrew Coyne who is live blogging the BC Human Rights show trial....soliciting freeper comment and updates throughout the day.
So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Macleans legal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. If I didnt know the stakes, Id be rooting for them. Actually I am rooting for them, in a strange sort of way. Dont tell my employers, but Im sort of hoping we lose this case. If we winthat is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyns book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese isthen the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how reasonable it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved. Hang on, were starting
9:45 AM PST The Chair is reviewing the legal history of the complaint. Apparently they have no jurisdiction over the Macleans website. So thats a relief
9:48 AM We have friends: the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists are here as intervenors.
9:54 AM Lawyers for the two sides are wrangling now over what witnesses the complainants are going to call, and whether my friend had properly informed my friend as to what my friend (the first one) had planned
9:56 AM The three member-panel has entered, chaired by Heather MacNaughton. She hasnt gotten six words out before one of the spectators shouts out, could you speak up please? To her credit, she takes it in stride
10:07 AM Lead counsel for the complainants (i.e., Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress) is Faisal Joseph. Leading off for Macleans is Roger McConchie, a BC human rights lawyer; Julian Porter will be coming on later to do the cross-examinations
10:18 AM Theyre going to call, among others, Dr. Andrew Rippon, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Victoria, to show that Steyn has misunderstood the relationship between the Koran and Islamic society. Well, thats as may be. Would be a good subject for debate. But why exactly does that require the state to adjudicate it?
Okay, I could probably make that point after every line. Not saying I wont
10:19 AM Section 7.1 of the BC Human Rights Code is the relevant legal text, prohibiting exposure to hate.
Free speech, in his humble submission, is a red herring.
10:20 AM Proceedings before the human rights tribunal are considerably less formal than before a court, the chair advises. Yes, indeed: unburdened by stuffy old rules of evidence, for example
10:26 AM Oh God: theyre talking about who theyll be calling on Friday. Five days in a windowless room. If thats not a human rights violation
10:29 AM Now recounting the tale of the Osgoode Hall law students, with their reasonable demand for Macleans to publish a meaningful response. Im guessing the definition of meaningful will come into play. In this case, it meant a 5000-word article which Macleans could not edit, accompanied by a cover of their own design which Macleans could not alter
Perhaps the citizens of Canaduh should consider obtaining a 1st amendment.
It gets worse...
10:33 AM
Cites hundreds of thousands of supporters, including the Canadian Federation of Students, Ontario Federation of Labour, Canadian Nurses Association
Theyre not trying to have speech criminalized. Just trying to right a terrible wrong. You (the tribunal) are the only thing standing in the way of racist, hateful Islamophobia, etc. And hes finished
10:34 AM
Faisal Joseph opening now
A national media organization that consistently and persistently denigrated Canadians of Muslim origin
while refusing to offer any meaningful reply
Quotes from Steyn article. Cites 20 other similar articles in Macleans over a two-year period, to show context.
10:37 AM
Islamophobia is the real issue. Steyns article shows multiple hallmarks of hate.
10:48 AM
Hes quoting various intemperate blog postswritten by people with no connection to Steyn or Macleansto make the point that Steyns article encouraged others to view Muslims with hatred.
10:51 AM
He mentions the tremendous power of mass media, and its columnists, to influence public opinion. This is undisputed. Oh, I dont know: Id dispute it.
10:54 AM
Joseph cites a number of previous prosecutions. The pattern is clear: those hauled before the human rights tribunal howl about censorship. Well, yes. Its not crying wolf if the wolf is in fact at your throat
10:55 AM
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.
10:59 AM
Just coming back from a break. Lots of media interest, it seems: CBC, CTV (Im told), the National Post, local media, and a guy from the New York Times, whos doing a piece comparing how the two countries legal systems deal with speech cases. Needless to say, he cant believe what hes witnessing
11:13 AM
McConchie is pointing out that Elmasry is in fact from Ontario. Does he in fact speak for any aggrieved party in BC?
Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism.
Or in other words, there is no defence.
11:16 AM
Incidentally, if youre wondering why these dispatches are so (uncharacteristically) terse, Im having to write on a Blackberrytheres no wi-fi in here. Not to mention light, air, water
11:22 AM
McConchie goes on: whether or not we agreed to publish the response sought is irrelevant. It wasnt in their original complaint, and its not grounds for claiming discrimination under Section 7.1.
And hes done.
11:23 AM
Now were on to whether to hear evidence from Professor John Miller, with regard to the Canadian Association of Journalists application for intervenor status. Hes a prof at Ryerson, former adjudicator for complaints at the Toronto Star, and a researcher on media representation of minorities. Joseph wants to call him to show context, how other media deal with balance, etc.
"...innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism."
Now that's unbelievable.
Thanks for the update and real-time reporting.
1:34 PM PST
And were back, with more gripping testimony on what my friend objected to in my friends representation of my friends deposition
1:36 PM
The chair is reading their ruling on the admissibility of Prof. John Millers testimonythough on what basis they propose to decide is a mystery, since THERE ARE NO RULES OF EVIDENCE. They more or less have to make it up as they go along.
Anyway, they are ruling it inadmissible, because its irrelevant. Or is it irrelevant because its inadmissible?
1:39 PM
Also ruling on Khurrum Awans testimony, as an Ontarian. Theyre going to take it, but rule on particular bits of it as they come up. Sigh.
1:42 PM
So now were going to hear about how the article affected him. He says Steyn didnt distinguish between diffferent types of Muslims, painted all with a broad brush. Hes going through the more inflammatory passages in the article
1:43 PM
Hes having trouble finding the one he wants. The chair helpfully suggests where he might find it.
1:48 PM
It occurs to me that most of the material he finds objectionableand Im not saying its unreasonable of him to take exception to itmight be found in the testimony before the Bouchard-Taylor commission
1:59 PM
On the other hand, were walking through another passagewhich Faisal Joseph notes is particularly significantin which Steyn particulalry disavows any suggestion that his concerns attach to all Muslims, but rather that the trends he observes prevail in enough of the Muslim population of Europe to be worrisome. This strikes me as eminently arguablebut whether it is or not, it is just surreal in a free and democratic society to be calling in a government panel to decide it. Instead of, you know, arguing it. Okay, thats the second time Ive made that point. I warned you
2:13 PM
Julian Porter on his feet, objecting on territorial grounds, as Awan details how the article made him feel as he read it in downtown Toronto. Overruled.
2:23 PM
Awan debated going to press councils, or pressing charges under the criminal code, but decided against. He looked at human rights legislation across the country. Differences: Ontario says you cant post a notice, sign or symbol that would be discriminatorynewspapers and magazines, it would seem, are not covered (as indeed the Ontario Human Rights Commission recently ruled). But hey, worth a shot. Plus BC had more open-ended legislation. So throw it in the mix as well. So: They werent trying to damage Macleans by filing in multiple jurisdictions. No no no. They were just jurisdiction-shopping.
2:26 PM
Now theyre into the whole sorry history of Macleans coverage of Muslims. Or they would be, had counsel not objected. It would be fascinating to see some of these, since in my experience the CIC sees Islamophobia virtually everywhere
2:46 PM
Roger McConchie is making a kind of prior history argument, i.e. the complainants are saying that the other 20 articles provide context. But the complaint has to do with just the Steyn article. Just as a defendants prior record cannot be used against him (except as similar fact evidence, to show a modus operandi), so Macleans prior articles cant be used to prove the harm caused by Steyns piece. The common thread: you have to prove guilt based on the facts of the case at hand. If the argument is that the earlier articles provide an interpretive filter through which to read the Steyn piece, well maybe they dobut the contention in the complaint is that the Steyn article exposes Muslims to hatred by itself. So theyre contradicting themselves.
2:58 PM
Coda to the preceding: this all assumes normal rules of evidence apply. Or indeed, any. But as they dont in this case, well, were about to hear the tribunals ruling.
3:00 PM
Glory glorytheyre ruling prior articles (i.e., prior to Steyns Oct. 23 2006 piece) out of bounds, but allowing subsequent articles. Solomonic, or incoherent? I report, you decide.
3:02 PM
Now were hearing about the Muslim law students famous meeting with Macleansalmost a year after the article appearedwhen they demanded the magazine publish their reply.
3:16 PM
They met with Ken Whyte (publisher and editor-in-chief), Mark Stevenson (editor) and Julian Porter (lawyer). The students presented their complaints for about five or ten minutes. Whyte replied, according to Awan, that Macleans wasnt interested in publishing their reply or in making a donation to a race relations group. Whyte said he didnt share his concerns about Steyns piece, and that there were important subtleties and distinctions in the piece he was overlooking, and you cant characterize us as anti-Muslim. Awan told him Macleans has published a whole bunch of anti-islamic articles. And the famous wed rather go bankrupt lineas in, wed rather go bankrupt then let someone else edit our magazine, which is what the students demands amounted tonot, as Awan suggests, that we would rather go bankrupt than publish any sort of reply. In fact, Macleans published 27 letters in the weeks following Steyns piece.
3:26 PM
All of this, so far, is within their rights. They have a right to be offended by Steyns piece. They have a right to complain about it, to denounce it, argue against it, ridicule it, and so on. They also have a right to issue whatever outrageous demands to Macleans they like, just as Macleans has a right to give these the back of their hand. What they dont, or shouldnt have a right to do is what happened next: taking their case to the cops. Or rather not the cops, but multiple human rights tribunals.
3:30 PM
Im infamous! Awan just cited my own article on the case (Got a complaint? Call 1-800-Human Rights), as evidence of Im not sure what
3:41 PM
L-o-n-g discussion about subsequent backing and forthing between Macleans and the students, wherein they offered to withdraw their complaints if Macleans yielded to their demands. This strikes me as supremely beside the point. If the article was as damaging as alleged, if it was sufficient by itself to expose Muslims to hatred, that would remain the case regardless of whether Macleans published a rebuttal. Or if counter-arguments were sufficient to mitigate the damage, well, thats really Macleans point, isnt it? The students offer, it seems to me, is revealing: if all they want is a right of reply, then all theyre saying is that they disagree with it. Which takes it out of the realm of the courts, kangaroo or otherwise.
I say that the plaintiffs are guilty of Islamnoparanoia, Islamnomegalomania and typical infidel discrimination, which just proves the point and causes a positive feedback effect.
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. Theyve decided again to sort-of admit questioning about the impact, not of Steyns article, but of various, mostly obscure blogs who were allegedly inspired by Steyns piece. Understand: were now to be subjected to the states 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 McConchie is pointing out, the tribunal has already ruled that it doesnt have jurisdiction over internet posts
3:59 PM
Overruled.
4:10 PM
Now were into, not even blogs, but comments left on a YouTube post. Is bathroom grafitti next?
4:27 PM
The YouTube post was of Steyns face-off with the students on TVOs The Agenda. Josephs last flourish before we adjourn for the day: Steyn was rude to them off camera! So the tribunal is now to consider overheard comments from the green room
4:31 PM
Good night. And I mean that in so many ways
BTTT!
Yes...
Thought criminals...
On your streets...
In Canada...
Who'd a-thunk it?
Now off to find Part 2...
Day two is here:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/03/liveblogging-the-bc-hrt-day-two-a-day-that-will-live-in-entropy/
Also, specifically which article of Steyn’s was it that made poor Awan feel bad? Is there a link somewhere?
Somewhere here, scroll down:
http://ezralevant.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.