Liveblogging the Maclean’s Trial V: Stand and Deliver

Faisal Joseph for the complainants: We’re here to right a terrible wrong. Case involves a complicated intersection of two important values — free speech and the right to be free from discrimination. Neither trumps the other, in his view. Not all speech is afforded the same protection — speech that is not close to the “core value” of free speech is not as well protected. That would be hate speech. Doesn’t advance truth-seeking, because it silences the target group. Doesn’t advance their self-development, etc.

Not offensive speech we’re after, but hate speech. And only on enumerated grounds — so just exposing individual polticians, say, to hatred is okay, but not those groups listed in the code. Two-part test under the code: does the speech itself espouse hatred, and is it likely to cause others to hate.

Going through the case law on Sect. 7.1 of the BC Human Rights code. Factors to take into account: the vulnerability of the target group, the tone of the message, whether it’s presented as opinion or fact, the context, the method of dissemination. Particular case that’s noteworth: Canadian Jewish Congress vs. North Shore News (the Doug Collins case.)

Stressing that it’s a two-part test, so free speech is well protected. eg. Speech that is neutral in tone, but might cause someone else to hate, is not caught; ditto speech that is itself hateful, but might not cause others to hate. Catches “only the speech that is appropriately silenced.” Application ensures there will be no — he pauses to do big air-quote — “chilling” effect.

Concedes some speech within a “shaded” area will be suppressed — but will only require authors who are “close to the line” to “think very carefully” about how they say it.

Using “Taylor” definition (from eponymous Supreme Court decision) of hatred and contempt — “extreme ill will,” group presented has having “no redeeming qualities”, “looking down upon” targeted group etc.

Law focuses on effects on targeted group, not the intentions of the author, so as to allow reparations. Test to apply is how a reasonable person would interpret the content, in this time and place, and if informed of its social and historical context: would a reasonable person find it hateful.

9:51 AM Now he’s reviewing the evidence we heard earlier. Ayoub: Steyn’s article claims Muslims in “an underground conspiracy to take over the world.” Rippin: shows them having a single, unchanging identity. Habib: Muslims told they don’t fit in, they’re not westerners, they’re foreigners. Experts agree that article makes no distinction between fringe elements in Muslim world and ordinary Muslims. Presented as a global, homogeneous group, with no identity outside religious belief.

Steyn article uses “subtle, seemingly intellectual arguments” rather than “overtly racist” speech. But that’s not going to save him — it’s “venom clothed in the language of reason.” Again citing the “obligatory of courses” passage against him. Nice work: An explicit disavowal of generalizations is rather evidence of generalizations.

Article uses sensationalist, fear-mongering tone, warns of dire events, “bloody” takeover. Cover used again: the picture of the little girl, in particular. There’s an obvious contradiction here: Habib said yesterday she looked frightened and vulnerable, playing on stereotypes of women in Muslim life. Joseph says she looks ominous and threatening, like something from “a horror movie.” Well, which is it?

Going through the “hallmarks of hate,” with passages from Steyn to support. First, targeted group is presented as taking over society, depriving others of safety, comfort etc. Second, group is presented as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable. Third, targeted group is presented as dangerous and violent by nature. In addition, Muslims are dehumanized by comparison to insects — true, Steyn was quoting a radical imam at the time, but that just shows how he uses radical fringe to tar the rest.

10:10 AM Having convicted Steyn of hatred in the first part, we’re on to the second part of the “two-part” test. That would be the infamous Belgian/American blog posts.

Cites Expert witness Hirji to show that racism is prevalent in the media, and also in the article. Examples: Distortion of jihad. Claim that Islam oppresses women. Claim that Islam is antiquated.

Article tries to couch its hatred of Muslims in “true” anecdotes to make generalized statements. Article uses a number of statistical facts, but then jumps from these to negative generalizations about Islam. Uses radical imams and Col Khadafy as representative figures for the entire Muslim community. Does not provide contextual details that would lessen impact. Incomplete or misleading anecdotes.

Hatefulness of article was never mitigated by published debate, “where you have both sides coming and the public can make up their own mind.” But “Maclean’s doesn’t want it.” Why? A stand-alone article without any response. (Leaving aside the 27 letters to the editor.) “You can’t have a debate with only one side of the story.”

Whoops, now he’s going through the letters to the editor. Some are pro-Steyn, or rather pro-hate. By his count, 10 are critical of Steyn — of which several were part of a letter-writing campaign on the part of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Canada). Maclean’s note of this fact is entered as evidence of malfeasance. But anyway, letters to the editor don’t count.

10:29 AM Talking about the power of the media to shape opinion. Ordinary citizen has only letters to the editor “if they’re lucky.”

Quoting from previous human rights tribunal rulings on how media cannot be exempted from its writ. Indeed, the more mainstream and respectable they are, the more essential it is that they be included, because people might be more inclined to believe racist propaganda when it appears there.

Evidence of actual increase in hate as result of article is unnecessary under law, but you have it: the blog posts. Discussing the Western Standard blog, among others, saying they are directly related to Steyn article. “There has never been a case in this country that has such clear concise evidence, ever. There will never be a more demonstrable case.” Cites comments calling for Muslims to be killed en masse, deported.

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.

BTT. The principal function of newspeak is to make the unreasonable sound reasonable.

We know its a show trial out of Alice In Wonderland. Maclean's and Mark Steyn were already found guilty. All they're deciding on the BC Human Rights Commission is the punishment. How lovely!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

3 posted on 06/06/2008 10:58:10 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)

4 posted on 06/06/2008 10:58:10 AM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)

The Koran is full of hate speech concerning infidels. It needs to be banned in BC

10:29 AM Talking about the power of the media to shape opinion. Ordinary citizen has only letters to the editor “if they’re lucky.”

That's funny 'cause he also said that anonymous "bloggers" from across the world and even right here in little ole FR are opining their hearts out. I'd say he likes it both ways but that might be misconstrued as hate speech. Whoops, did I just couch that venom in the langauge of reason? Drat! Now I've used sarcasm! Take me away, Canada, no more toast for me.

7 posted on 06/07/2008 7:29:05 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (I tried to explain that I meant it as a compliment, but that only appears to have made things worse.)

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.