The court of last resort ***
Posted on 03 June 2008 by Jack
VANCOUVER — In the subterranean bowels of a provincial courthouse, a bizarre and frightening spectacle starts to unfold.
At issue are the pointed musings of Mark Steyn, a journalist and author living in the United States. A lengthy excerpt from his controversial book, America Alone, was published two years ago in Toronto-based Maclean’s magazine, a weekly publication owned by Toronto-based Roger’s Publishing Ltd.
The book excerpt ran as a cover story, entitled “Why the Future Belongs to Islam,” and argued that Western democracy is threatened by the spread of Islam. In response, a human rights complaint was made here, in British Columbia, by an electrical engineer living in Waterloo, Ont.
That’s the bizarre part, or one slice of it. None of the main players starring in this quasi-judicial drama actually live or work in B. C. Not Mr. Steyn, not the editors responsible for Maclean’s, and not Mohamed Elmasry, a Muslim who launched a complaint to the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal on behalf of all Muslims in this province.
Neither Mr. Steyn, nor his editors, nor Mr. Elmasry were in sight when the tribunal panel began the week-long hearing yesterday. Mr. Steyn will not testify, say lawyers for Maclean’s. Nor will Mr. Elmasry, the aggrieved. So why bring the complaint forward here? Because Mr. Elmasry can. This thanks to provincial human rights legislation of a breadth and elasticity not known in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and a highly controversial figure himself — especially among Jewish groups — claims the Steyn excerpt denigrated and vilified Canadian Muslims and promoted hatred of an identifiable group.
He is not obliged to demonstrate what harm occurred to whom, or to what degree. Maclean’s magazine and Mr. Steyn could still be found to have violated B. C.’s Human Rights Code. No proof of damage is required.
Meanwhile, if found to have violated the code, Maclean’s faces sanctions, including payment to the complainant “an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.”
The magazine could also be ordered to stop publishing certain ideas and points of view. Lawyer Faisal Joseph, representing the complainant, asked the Tribunal yesterday to use its “discretion” and order Maclean’s to publish a suitable response in its pages. That, or publish the panel’s ultimate findings. Such are the frightening aspect of this case.
“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.
Over the objection of Maclean’s lawyers, witness Khurrum Awan was allowed to proceed with his dire interpretation of the Steyn piece, and to discuss the harm that it allegedly caused to Muslims in B. C., where he does not reside.
Related: This HRC Tidbit Smells Like a Rat
Related: The hawks are watching…
The National Post’s Brian Hutchinson goes searching for a British Columbian at the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal. Plus: First intermission report - and Meet the Troika!
Live blogging of this morning’s hot Sock Puppet action begins at 9.30am Pacific from Andrew Coyne, Ezra Levant and Jay Currie. Here’s how the mainstream boys are reporting it: The Vancouver Sun, The Province, the CBC, and the Canadian Press. Plus further summaries from within the court and without.
“Funny”…
I haven’t seen Mad Max’s name mentioned even once in all of this. No cleavage either.
What’s with that?
Update: Liveblogging the BC HRT, Day Two: A Day That Will Live in Entropy
Popularity: 21% [?]
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
In all of the rivers of ink that have flowed over the last few months concerning the HRC’s and their wretched excesses, nowhere have I seen anything about how their rulings are enforced. Plenty has been written about how “the process is the punishment” and that part is crystal clear. So what happens when you (inevitably) lose a case and you are handed a fine in the five or six figure range. What if you refuse to pay? What if you have no assets with which to pay? Can what assets you have be confiscated? Can you be jailed? Would refusal to comply with an HRC ruling land you in a REAL court of law? One would think that would be the most favourable outcome… REAL rules of evidence and all that. Perhaps the more learned of your readers could comment…
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Glen From Sask: Ezra Levant did a post on April 20th about the type of questions you are asking. The link is below:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/can-you-just-ignore-a-human-ri.html
I think the MSM is being awfully short sighted about this issue. Most of them are left of centre so they probably think Steyn and Macleans are getting what they deserve. Why they can’t understand that if Macleans/Steyn are found ‘guilty’ than plaintiffs will be emboldened to go after other media sources. I have this sense that much of the media is willing to cut off its nose to spite its face.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
This is the same reason why defence lawyers are so necessary. Many people are angered by defence lawyers who defend criminals, but it is absolutely necessary that they exist so as to uphold the rule of law and require the state follow its own rules. Even though they anger people, defence lawyers, when the defend the guilty, are really defending us all…just as by defending Mark Steyn (who I like) or the likes of Mark Lemire (who makes my stomach curdle) is to defend everyone’s free speecH.
You are soooo right about the short sightedness of the mainstream media. Also, don’t forget their basic laziness…most of them will do anything for a story…except look something up.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You are soooo right about the short sightedness of the mainstream media. Also, don’t forget their basic laziness…most of them will do anything for a story…except look something up.
That’s interesting Blaise, Had the MSM done their job like they suppose to do- many of the liberals in parliament will not live a day without been bashed by them(MSM) for the missing millions the liberala stole from us for their own personal use.
But many of the MSM are NOT reporters heck they don’t understand the prime minister when he speaks.
These chosen MSM are hand picked by the liberal to carry out their dirty work.
EZRA LEVANT is no match for Duffy or newman-too advance for their liking.
As long as these MSM continue to hang around and write fairy tale stories, who can we rely one for news except for Jack Newswatch, Sandy, JJ, NBTL etcs; they can teach the MSM how to write.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In answer to Glen’s query concerning the enforveability of a HRC order. Unless I am mistaken, the HRC order can be filed with a “real” court; after that it has the effect of a court order, which can be enforced in the normal way…bailiff seizures, threats of contempt etc. Terrifying…
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
That’s really scary, Bruce.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am
One act of Parliament stops the HRC nonsense. Just one.
We are not tolerating, and will not tolerate, these abusive kangaroo courts. So get busy on the legislation and put them in a box. We’re demanding it.