What the Hell's Going On In There?

One thing that caught my eye while reading up on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) and Maclean's fiasco was Andrew Coyne's remark about a US reporter.

Some guy from the New York Times was in attendance. He's doing a story on the different ways that the two countries deal with speech laws. Coyne said the guy couldn't believe what he was seeing.

I'll say. I can just imagine a Yankee reporter wandering into the Vancouver hearing room and listening to bits like, "Strict rules of evidence don't apply," from the mouth of the Tribunal chair.

Andrew Coyne, a writer for Maclean's, was doing a live blog during yesterday's hearing. His report is pretty amazing stuff. I dare anyone to read it and not come away with a feeling that this whole human rights deal is absurd.

Actually, I shouldn't have said that. I went tiptoeing through the internet last night and saw a lot of commentary that sided with the human rights complaint against Maclean's, as well as the procedures being used by the BCHRT. Frankly, I figure that people are siding with the procedures because of who is on trial. Mark Steyn (Islamophobe) and Maclean's (Islamaphobe's publisher).

After reading Coyne's live blog, I guess the human rights procedures boil down to something like this:

1) there are no trial procedures as in any real court. The tribunal decides who speaks, and in which order, from day to day.

2) the complainant (in this case, Mohamed Elmasry) doesn't have to be in attendance. The hearing can go on without him. Facing your accuser? Forget it.

3) Hearsay evidence is admissible, and is still admissible even if one of the people who originally said something is in the room while you're giving the hearsay testimony.

4) Jurisdiction does not apply. In this hearing, a witness from Ontario testified that he read something in Ontario and was offended by it in Ontario...which is why he's testifying in a BC hearing room. From Coyne: "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."

5) Jurisdiction shopping is allowed. The complainant was not in attendance, so one of his representatives outlined how they looked at the human rights codes of various places, and made their picks. Ontario, BC, and the Federal human rights commissions. You've gotta get lucky sooner or later.

6) The original charge doesn't matter much, it's more about the alleged violation's impact on the world at large. This one is especially weird. Get this: the Steyn article in Maclean's is what the complaint is all about. Yet the witness (Khurrum Awan) went on at length about stuff he read after the Steyn article was released, and how it made him feel. The witness and his counsel are claiming that the Steyn article inspired these works. Blog posts, YouTube comments, and other internet material. This is especially creepy, because the state is being asked not to look at a specific incident, but to read the minds of anonymous nice-Canadians-turned-bigots and use it in their ruling. What does any of this have to do with Elmasry? Nothing.

7) Rules of evidence don't exist. For instance, yesterday the lead counsel for the complainant, Faisal Joseph, read from 20 Maclean's articles. Later in the day, blog post were read aloud, and comments from YouTube were referenced. How do we know who wrote this stuff? We don't. Could have been anybody. None of this stuff is vetted for veracity. Even the 20 Maclean's articles could be bogus, and the Tribunal would never know it. With no rules of evidence, do you think they investigated the articles for original accuracy before the hearing?

8) It's this next from the Tribunal that should scare you the most. Andrew Coyne: "Under Section 7.1, he continues, innocent intent is not a defence, nor is truth, nor is fair comment or the public interest, nor is good faith or responsible journalism. Or in other words, there is no defence." That's Maclean's lawyer, giving a rundown of section 7.1, the section that says you can't expose people to hatred or contempt. Look at that list and tell me if he's wrong: there is no defence. If someone's offended by what you write, no matter how true, no matter how factual, then you're done like dinner for a hate offense.

I'm with the New York Times guy: what the hell's going on in there?

What disturbs me the most are the people that agree wholeheartedly with the procedure. Their hatred of Steyn and what he's written has fogged up their glasses. The common defence of the BCHRT that I'm reading is, "Maclean's and Steyn haven't been found guilty of anything yet, so it doesn't matter. It'll all go away, you haters, and you can get back to work."

Are people really that thick? The process in itself is a crime against a democratic society. Hearsay evidence. Shopping for a jurisdiction until you find one with favourable statutes. Filing simultaneous complaints and hoping to get lucky. Using the after-the-fact blog rants of strangers to condemn someone for what they've written. Not being able to face your accuser. Zero rules of evidence.

But really, the biggest crime is the complaint itself. "I didn't like what you wrote, so now I will bring you down." How many people will censor themselves now, just to avoid something like that? How many people will it silence?

The accusation is the conviction, the process is the punishment. Don't they get it? Actually, I think they get it only too well.