Thursday, June 05, 2008

The country waits and fumes... BC Separation on the rise?

Are BC's "human rights" 'roos so sure of themselves that a bunch of people can come from Ontario and get an order on what we in BC can and cannot read?

Speculation is rife that the Human Rights Tribunal is actually going to make a precedent and throw out a case against a Section 7/13 complainant, not allowing the law to be thrown into question in higher courts. Andrew Coyne has not even started live blogging yet, but there are already 28, make that 46, comments under the title for today's: Liveblogging the Macleans Trial IV: Habib and Habib Not : Andrew Coyne's Blog : Blog Central

If you haven't seen it yet, yesterday's Brian Hutchinson reporting summed up the insanity of having Ontario resentments played out in a BC tribunal

As for the man himself:
Mr. Steyn, making his first appearance yesterday at the tribunal's hearings, won't testify in the case but had plenty to say outside the courtroom.

"I think we are almost certain to be convicted and then we will appeal," he said.

If that happens, he added, "We are going to have a privately owned magazine under state regulation. There are countries where that happens. And there's a word for that: totalitarian."

Mr. Steyn expressed frustration that the tribunal does not allow him to confront his accusers and does not provide him due process.

He was absent the first two days of the hearings because of an important prior commitment: He had dinner with media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

While Mr. Steyn couldn't confirm whether he'll stay until the hearing concludes, he suggested that once he leaves Vancouver, he won't be back.

However, Steyn does return to his column:
Just for the record (and before it becomes chiselled in the granite of British Columbia "human rights" jurisprudence), I wasn't aware I was being rude to my accusers after the TVOntario show. The very last words on air were me saying, "You wanna go to dinner?", and Khurrum Awan yelling back "No!" But, as the host Steve Paikin and his producers reported at some length on their website, Khurrum and I and the two gals stuck around for an hour of relatively civil conversation. In fact, I got the impression one of the ladies was growing rather fond of me, which, to be honest, was the main reason I hung about. But, now I come to think of it, that was the way it went at high school. You figure you're doing great and then next morning you overhear her telling her best friend by the lockers that she thought you were a dweeby limpet with halitosis. Unfortunately, in today's fractious legal environment, if Khurrum Awan thinks you're a dweeby limpet with halitosis who can't dance and has dried sweat rings under his cheesecloth shirt, he can add it to the long list of actionable "human rights" grievances to be laid before multiple tribunals and commissions.

As legal scholars who'd attended the "trial" under the misapprehension that it bore some dim resemblance to conventional legal proceedings observed, it was hard to see what the post-show chit-chat after a television broadcast in 2008 had to do with a 2006 Maclean's cover story, which is, after all, supposed to be the hate crime under investigation. But it's even harder to see what any of this has to do with British Columbia or the "British Columbia Muslim community," on whose behalf this "human rights" suit is being brought. TVOntario is, despite its deceptive name, a TV network in Ontario. It is not broadcast in British Columbia. Khurrum Awan, the Osgoode Hall law student on the witness stand, is an alumnus of the Osgoode Hall in Toronto, not some entirely different Osgoode Hall at Fort Nelson. He lives in Mississauga, which is a suburb of Buckinghorse River. Whoops, my mistake. I mean Toronto. He works in Ontario, as an employee of the very barrister examining him in that Vancouver courtroom, fellow Ontario resident Faisal Joseph. Indeed, it is unclear whether Mr. Awan had ever set foot in British Columbia until he and Mr. Joseph and the rest of their vast Ontario delegation flew out to the coast to testify to the pain and suffering of the British Columbia Muslim community they claim to represent. When the Ontarian Mr. Awan and his fellow Ontarians agreed to appear on an Ontario TV show, there were no members of the British Columbia Muslim community present, either in the studio, the makeup room or the men's toilet (I cannot vouch for the ladies'). As they'd say in Hollywood, no members of the British Columbia Muslim community were harmed in the making of this program.
Tarek Fatah: "If this case can be summed up, it would be: “The Muslim Brotherhood vs. Canada.”


Rose said...

If they rule in the complainants favour we can finally get a ruling by the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of Section 13 or their sister legislation.

It sickens me to see what is happening in Canada under the guise of stomping out hate, in reality the various HRC are peddling hate for prophet. Instead of being a noble organization that espouse moral guidelines and proper treatment of minority groups they've become an ugly marxist bully. Enforcing their ideals or lack there of via tribunal rulings. The message being sent to ordinary Canadians is this: "We are The new World Order" where feelings are more important than rule of law.

Blind obedience or we shall financially destroy you, ruin your reputation and ban you from what they deem hateful, well I think the HRCs are a vile hateful band of Marxist shakedown artist. I really hate them.

Findalis said...

From what I read it seems that the Muslims are angry at what was written in Belgium and not in Canada.

It is ashame that Canada doesn't have Freedom of Speech written into their Constitution. The US Supreme Court has ruled on this very issue. Even the most hateful speech is protected speech.

truepeers said...

Thankfully, Rose, it is probably still legal to hate the BCHRT, though maybe that changed yesterday and they just didn't tell anyone.

I think we're going to win this one.

Dr.Dawg said...

the various HRC are peddling hate for prophet

I thought that's what Steyn was doing.

Eowyn said...

truepeers, I think we will, one way or another.

If the "tribunal" dismisses the complaint (for the first time), we still have Ezra Levant. (And, no doubt, others.)

If the "tribunal" rules against Macleans, then a Real Court is the next venue. (With Real Rules.)(As defined by English Common Law.)

There is not no way, not no how -- to paraphrase The Wizard of Oz -- truth will not out.

Rose, you are a true Canadian. Keep on fighting the good fight. You'll win, just wait!

Dr. Dawg -- I DID try to post a reasonable, non-troll expression of opinion on your blog, only to be ignored. I still have you bookmarked, because I like the cut of your jib. In the interest of communication, and cross-understanding, I do hope I can be welcome at your site. But I hope snark doesn't overcome moving ahead. (If that makes sense.)