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