Deborah Gyapong writes:
I wonder upon what basis the BC Human Right Tribunal assesses that Maclean's Magazine and the Mark Steyn article is not based upon fact, since the magazine nor Steyn never offered any defence of its facts. I see that it's the acceptance of the "expert witnesses" produced by the complainants:
"We have accepted the expert evidence of Drs. Rippin and Ayoub that the Article contains historical, religious and factual inaccuracies...."
That's something I considered while reading the panel's "findings." Was this panel interested in prosecuting discrimination, or were they writing a book report for ninth grade English Lit?
You can read their findings in this 51-page document. It takes you on a meanering walk through the mind of a bureaucrat. Lots of subsection-this, italics-case that, putting a lawyer's capital A on Article to sound cool throughout, so forth. Like most bureaucrats, they try to come off as experts on everything. I love the language in this bit:
The Article expresses strong, polemical, and, at times, glib opinions about Muslims, as well as world demographics and democracies.
And I, like to use, at times, many commas, when I write about important, really important, topics, like whether, or not, it's even possible, to be glib, about world demographics.
What cracks me up about the human rights thugs is this desire to play Expert. Yet in their appendix, the only thing they quote is Steyn's book. So much for looking into those historical and factual inaccuracies. The least they could have done was Google it.
How do they know that Steyn's article is "glib?" Because they say it is: "It contains few scholarly trappings..."
Ha! Take that, Steyn. Not only are you a smear merchant, you're also a dope.
Fact is, the human rights thugs are D-U-M-M dumb when it comes to "scholarly trappings." Take a look at this hilarious analysis: " Read objectively, the tone and content of the Article was not nearly as offensive as some of the Internet blogs which post-dated it. While such blogs do provide some evidence that the Article exposed the complainants to hatred and contempt..."
Somewhere in Steyn's article there must have been a message in invisible ink: "After reading my Article (capitalized to sound legal and cool) you must go and blog about Muslims. Use plenty of hatred or contempt."
How is it possible that a blog written by some dude in Jersey shows that Steyn's article exposed the complainants to hatred? If anything, the article - excuse me, Article - exposed the blogger to hatred because he was the one who blogged about it.
The best part of the book report comes in section 158. This one's a beauty: "The Article may attempt to rally public opinion by exaggeration and causing the reader to fear Muslims, but fear is not synonymous with hatred and contempt."
I'm still slapping my knee over that one. Honestly, it's the laugher of the year. Let me get this straight: I'm not allowed to write a blog telling people to hate Muslims or Jews, but I am allowed to write a blog telling people that they should run and hide if they meet a Muslim or a Jew? Please explain how that wouldn't be contemptuous of either of them.
The tribunal can't explain that, of course. After reading this latest of verdicts, you come to see they they can't explain anything at all. In fact, they've painted themselves into one hell of a corner:
"Why did you burn a cross on that man's lawn? Do you hate him?"
"No. He freaks me out. Gives me the heebie-jeebies."
"Oh. Why didn't you say so? You're free to go."
Showing posts with label British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Human Rights Bureaucrats Score Another Victory
I just got back to Canada and heard that the latest installment of Steyn Wars has wrapped up. In case you don't remember what the Steyn Wars are all about, you can read one of my re-caps here.
I wrote that piece back on June 2nd. Four months later the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has turned in their verdict on Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine (the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission already punted). The question put to the tribunal was this: "Did Steyn's article, and Maclean's printing of it, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt?"
Their answer:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.
There's two ways you can take that. 1) the tribunal punted, wanting the whole Steyn affair to go away so they could carry on with life. 2) the tribunal weighed the "evidence" and made a good, fair decision.
Either way, you're screwed. Here's why:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified. If you're a believer in free speech, then that statement tells you everything you need to know. The "panel" believes it is in their power to hear complaints about written words, and weigh them as to their political correctness. This time, apparently, the complaints weren't justified. Next time they could be. You have no way of knowing when or if you've written something that will land you in front of the tribunal until you land in front of the tribunal. So it's still a case of "write at your own risk."
...the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. There's that magic word again. Likely. How do you possibly prove or disprove that something is likely to expose you to anything? It's completely subjective. The fact that the tribunal is still using the Likely Rule shows they have learned nothing from this fiasco. Nothing, that is, except that they enjoy having absolute power over whomever they accuse, try and convict in the court of public opinion and in the tribunal's shadowy realm of righteous political thought. Likely covers all the bases. Likely keeps them in business. Note too that the panel does not say Steyn isn't a bigot worth shutting up. They're just saying the complainants didn't establish it well enough.
This time hatred or contempt was unlikely. Next time, it could be likely. And notice that two-letter word "or." What if hatred will be unlikely, but contempt likely? Or vice versa? In any case, every time you put pen to paper you have remind yourself that you can be seen as being contemptuous of someone, somewhere.
That's their goal, of course. Fear. I don't think it matters a whit to the tribunal if they ever hear another case. Their point is to put that germ of an idea in your head: think twice before you speak your mind. Be worried. Be afraid. What does fear get them? Control. Once in a while the tribunal may have to throw someone under the bus to get their point across, but it will never be someone famous ever again. Bet on that.
I've seen some gloating in the blogosphere, as some writers poke their thumb in the eye of the tribunal. Steyn has a list of them on his site. Many of these writers believe that the tribunal's showing its true colors. They're laughing at the tribunal's cynicism. I'm not sure why, since it's obvious that the tribunal has scored another win.
For the human rights bureaucrats, their Steyn troubles are over. It was probably the last high profile case they will ever hear. Never again will they allow themselves to be dragged into the mainstream press like this. Far better for them to stick to nobodies like tavern owners, bloggers, and small time politicos.
In short order, the media's interest in these star chambers will die down to nothing. Being good bureaucrats, the tribunal released news of this decision on a Friday at 3pm EST, heading into a weekend and right before a Federal election. This news will be buried by Saturday afternoon, and by Monday morning it will be forgotten completely.
Canada's human rights bureaucrats might be power hungry thugs, but they aren't idiots. Bloggers beware. For you, it's still open season, and probably will be from here on out.
(Update: I found Steyn's take here).
I wrote that piece back on June 2nd. Four months later the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has turned in their verdict on Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine (the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Commission already punted). The question put to the tribunal was this: "Did Steyn's article, and Maclean's printing of it, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt?"
Their answer:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.
There's two ways you can take that. 1) the tribunal punted, wanting the whole Steyn affair to go away so they could carry on with life. 2) the tribunal weighed the "evidence" and made a good, fair decision.
Either way, you're screwed. Here's why:
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified. If you're a believer in free speech, then that statement tells you everything you need to know. The "panel" believes it is in their power to hear complaints about written words, and weigh them as to their political correctness. This time, apparently, the complaints weren't justified. Next time they could be. You have no way of knowing when or if you've written something that will land you in front of the tribunal until you land in front of the tribunal. So it's still a case of "write at your own risk."
...the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. There's that magic word again. Likely. How do you possibly prove or disprove that something is likely to expose you to anything? It's completely subjective. The fact that the tribunal is still using the Likely Rule shows they have learned nothing from this fiasco. Nothing, that is, except that they enjoy having absolute power over whomever they accuse, try and convict in the court of public opinion and in the tribunal's shadowy realm of righteous political thought. Likely covers all the bases. Likely keeps them in business. Note too that the panel does not say Steyn isn't a bigot worth shutting up. They're just saying the complainants didn't establish it well enough.
This time hatred or contempt was unlikely. Next time, it could be likely. And notice that two-letter word "or." What if hatred will be unlikely, but contempt likely? Or vice versa? In any case, every time you put pen to paper you have remind yourself that you can be seen as being contemptuous of someone, somewhere.
That's their goal, of course. Fear. I don't think it matters a whit to the tribunal if they ever hear another case. Their point is to put that germ of an idea in your head: think twice before you speak your mind. Be worried. Be afraid. What does fear get them? Control. Once in a while the tribunal may have to throw someone under the bus to get their point across, but it will never be someone famous ever again. Bet on that.
I've seen some gloating in the blogosphere, as some writers poke their thumb in the eye of the tribunal. Steyn has a list of them on his site. Many of these writers believe that the tribunal's showing its true colors. They're laughing at the tribunal's cynicism. I'm not sure why, since it's obvious that the tribunal has scored another win.
For the human rights bureaucrats, their Steyn troubles are over. It was probably the last high profile case they will ever hear. Never again will they allow themselves to be dragged into the mainstream press like this. Far better for them to stick to nobodies like tavern owners, bloggers, and small time politicos.
In short order, the media's interest in these star chambers will die down to nothing. Being good bureaucrats, the tribunal released news of this decision on a Friday at 3pm EST, heading into a weekend and right before a Federal election. This news will be buried by Saturday afternoon, and by Monday morning it will be forgotten completely.
Canada's human rights bureaucrats might be power hungry thugs, but they aren't idiots. Bloggers beware. For you, it's still open season, and probably will be from here on out.
(Update: I found Steyn's take here).
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Worse By the Minute
I just took a peek at Andrew Coyne's live-blog from the Maclean's/British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing. It's in its fourth day, and the news gets more bizarre by the minute.
For a Canadian, it makes for pretty depressing stuff. I don't know if I should keep reading it in order to stay up-to-date on what's going on, or if I should try to ignore it until the weekend so I don't get too bummed out.
Turns out, there's no stenographer in the hearing room, and they've been having trouble with their microphones. In other words, there might be no official record of what's going on in there. That leaves us with reporter Andrew Coyne, trying his best to record what he sees and hears.
Right now, the complainant (Naiyer Habib) is reading blog posts that he got from the internet. The posts reference Steyn's article, and they go on to make all kinds of bigoted slurs against Muslims. This, the complainant argues, shows that Steyn's article incites bigotry in British Columbia. Trouble is, the two blogs are from outside the country. One's in the US, the other's in Belgium.
The tribunal, though it doesn't have any jurisdiction over the internet and doesn't know who wrote the blogs, has declared that the blogs are valid as evidence (though - and there's a lot of the word "though" when discussing this stuff - the tribunal has no rules of evidence to weigh the evidence against).
These internet posts could have been written by anybody. Could have been the guy sitting next to you on the bus, or some guy killing time in the South Pole. Nobody knows. But they're deemed valid to show that Steyn's work is against the human rights code of British Columbia, and that his work incites hatred in the province. What they're saying is, Steyn and Maclean's must pay because someone, somewhere, is a bigot.
In passing, Andrew Coyne makes a brief comment in the middle of his live-blog. It won't make any headlines, and barely anybody will notice it. He makes the comment while reporting on the racist posts that the complainant is reading aloud. For me, Coyne's aside is the most important statement to come out of the hearing:
It occurs to me: I hope the BC Human Rights code makes exception for reports of their own proceedings. Otherwise I’m in trouble, since the code makes no allowance for reporting on a matter of public interest…
Read that comment again. This is a Canadian journalist, who has written hundreds of articles and columns over his career. And today, he is nervous that quotation marks around bigoted slurs will not protect him from litigation. I will bet you anything that he never thought he'd make that comment in his lifetime. He should never have had to. To use his words, it should never have occurred to him.
That's what I mean when I say, "The accusation is the conviction. The process is the punishment." A conviction isn't necessary, because the fear of accusation is enough to get people to censor themselves. Never mind shutting up the bloggers. From the look of Coyne's comment, this hearing has already placed the germ of fear and silence into the heads of the mainstream press.
For a Canadian, it makes for pretty depressing stuff. I don't know if I should keep reading it in order to stay up-to-date on what's going on, or if I should try to ignore it until the weekend so I don't get too bummed out.
Turns out, there's no stenographer in the hearing room, and they've been having trouble with their microphones. In other words, there might be no official record of what's going on in there. That leaves us with reporter Andrew Coyne, trying his best to record what he sees and hears.
Right now, the complainant (Naiyer Habib) is reading blog posts that he got from the internet. The posts reference Steyn's article, and they go on to make all kinds of bigoted slurs against Muslims. This, the complainant argues, shows that Steyn's article incites bigotry in British Columbia. Trouble is, the two blogs are from outside the country. One's in the US, the other's in Belgium.
The tribunal, though it doesn't have any jurisdiction over the internet and doesn't know who wrote the blogs, has declared that the blogs are valid as evidence (though - and there's a lot of the word "though" when discussing this stuff - the tribunal has no rules of evidence to weigh the evidence against).
These internet posts could have been written by anybody. Could have been the guy sitting next to you on the bus, or some guy killing time in the South Pole. Nobody knows. But they're deemed valid to show that Steyn's work is against the human rights code of British Columbia, and that his work incites hatred in the province. What they're saying is, Steyn and Maclean's must pay because someone, somewhere, is a bigot.
In passing, Andrew Coyne makes a brief comment in the middle of his live-blog. It won't make any headlines, and barely anybody will notice it. He makes the comment while reporting on the racist posts that the complainant is reading aloud. For me, Coyne's aside is the most important statement to come out of the hearing:
It occurs to me: I hope the BC Human Rights code makes exception for reports of their own proceedings. Otherwise I’m in trouble, since the code makes no allowance for reporting on a matter of public interest…
Read that comment again. This is a Canadian journalist, who has written hundreds of articles and columns over his career. And today, he is nervous that quotation marks around bigoted slurs will not protect him from litigation. I will bet you anything that he never thought he'd make that comment in his lifetime. He should never have had to. To use his words, it should never have occurred to him.
That's what I mean when I say, "The accusation is the conviction. The process is the punishment." A conviction isn't necessary, because the fear of accusation is enough to get people to censor themselves. Never mind shutting up the bloggers. From the look of Coyne's comment, this hearing has already placed the germ of fear and silence into the heads of the mainstream press.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)