To: Slings and Arrows
That's what I was thinking too. I remember reading that these kangaroo councils had a 100% "conviction rate" (or whatever they call it). It is to be certain that this was dismissed not on the merits, but because (A) CHRHC is hugely embarrassed over the Internet publicity given this case and (B) wanted to be spared the exposure of being roasted at an appeals trial.
I don't know anything about Canadian law -- do MacLean's and Steyn have any process where they can sue CHRC for defamation, wrongful prosecution, etc.? Or at least sue to recover their costs?
12 posted on
06/27/2008 12:59:31 PM PDT by
NewJerseyJoe
(Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
To: NewJerseyJoe
There's no compensation system there I've ever heard of with these CHRC cases. On the other hand Steyn and company could approach the Parliament for a private bill to deal with their expenses.
It is, after all, Canada's Parliament that is the cause of all this nonsense.
14 posted on
06/27/2008 1:13:01 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
To: NewJerseyJoe
The big thing is that they forced the defendants to spend time and money having to deal with this kangaroo court. Win or lose, they will make you pay for your Political Incorrectness
19 posted on
06/27/2008 2:40:19 PM PDT by
PapaBear3625
("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson