|
THE TYRANNY OF NICE
Out now! Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere's must-read book on the Steyn case, the Canadian state's war on free speech, and what it means for America, too. This trenchant exposé comes with a rollicking introduction by Mark on his year in Canada's "human rights" hell. Order your personally autographed copy today - or double your fun with Steyn, Hewitt and The War Against The West in our War & Tyranny bumper bundle!
Exclusively from
the Steyn Store
|
|
|
Steynposts
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2008 |
|
Garry J Wise is a Toronto lawyer who's taken an interest in the CIC's complaints and has been quoted on the story in The Washington Times. His shtick is very consistent: eminently reasonable, Mister Moderate, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, folks. "My impression," he writes, "remains that the complaints against him are dubious, politically-motivated and extremely unlikely to succeed." But that's the point: The thing'll work its way through the system, and at some stage toward the end of this year or maybe next year, the Canadian, British Columbia and Ontario "Human Rights" Commissions will all decide that Maclean's and I should be "acquitted", and that will demonstrate that the system "works".
That may make sense from a lawyer's viewpoint. But it's not how the world operates. As evidence of how the process is ultimately "fair", Mr Wise cites a 2002 case from Saskatchewan, in which the HRC ordered both The Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to pay $1,500 to each of three complainants who had objected to the Star Phoenix's publication of an advertisement by Mr Owens. The advertisement quoted some of the sterner Biblical passages on homosexuality. Actually, it didn't "quote" them. It merely listed the relevant chapter and verse: Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9. Nonetheless, that was enough for the HRC, which relieved the parties of nine thousand bucks for "exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule".
However, as Mr Wise points out, four years later the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, and he evidently regards this as a satisfactory outcome demonstrating the robustness of freedom of expression in Canada. He's right, in an extremely narrow legal sense. But in real terms what's the consequence of Mr Owens' four-year struggle? I would invite Mr Wise to attempt to place the very same advertisement as Mr Owens with The Saskatoon Star Phoenix today. They won't take it. They've learned their lesson. So, regardless of the appeal, the practical consequence of the Owens case has been the shriveling of the bounds of public discourse in Canada.
I would expect the same consequence from an "acquittal" in this case, which is why neither Maclean's nor I want one. I don't know why Mr Wise is so proud of a system which takes four years to determine whether a Canadian citizen and a major provincial newspaper are permitted to cite passages from the world's all-time bestselling book, but there is plenty of prima facie evidence to suggest the "human rights" racket is systemically corrupt. I will cite only the most obvious example:
In the three decades of its existence, no defendant dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission under a Section XIII complaint has ever been acquitted. A "court" that only reaches the same verdict is not the most reassuring example of justice's blindness. Furthermore, over half of all Section XIII cases have been brought by a single complainant, Richard Warman. Mr Warman is not only a near parodic definition of a nuisance plaintiff but he is also a former employee of the very same HRC that has been so attentive to his "grievances". When we run one of our election competitions at this website, there's a little bit of small print way down at the bottom saying that any employees past or present of SteynOnline or Mark Steyn Enterprises are ineligible to enter. That's standard boilerplate in the commercial sector. But apparently in Canada's highest "Human Rights" "court" there's no problem about a former employee using it as his own personal inquisition (and, indeed, given the fines he's collected, personal piggy bank). The willingness of the CHRC to serve as Mr Warman's enforcer for what he boasts of as a personal enemies list ought to be a public scandal.
However, let's not be too hard on Mr Warman - and not only because, by now, he's almost certainly got me lined up as his latest "complaint". Mr Warman is only taking the system to its logical conclusion. Being (I assume) a proper lawyer, Garry Wise ought to know that the "Human Rights" process is not an exercise in law. Truth is no defence. In all their whiney columns and letters about their lack of opportunity to "rebut" my piece, the four Osgoode Hall students have not "rebutted" a single quotation, a single fact, a single statistic. And why should they? The accuracy of the statements is not at issue. All that matters is whether you were "offended" by them. So these pseudo-courts are weighing nothing but hurt feelings. And, if you're as ready to take offence as Richard Warman is, you might as well take profitable advantage of such a skewed system.
What exactly does Mr Wise find so admirably "Canadian" about this business? To modify M Trudeau, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Unless you're tucked up reading a copy of Maclean's."
"Acquittal" would only legitimize this racket. I say it's time to end it.
|
|
|
Steynposts
|
|
Tuesday, 01 January 2008 |
|
I see the anonymous masterminds behind Law Is Cool have now sunk their baby teeth into Jay Currie. You'd think the poor touchy little things would have realized they were way out of their depth by this point, but instead their ripostes are getting even more fantastically pompous:
The complainants in the case are not synonymous with this website, in part or in its entirety.
You would be wise to be informed of this distinction before making any such statements.
Love it. All the portentous self-importance of your big-time QC with none of the legal skills. What's Law Is Cool threatening with their you-would-be-wise-or-else routine? Gonna call in m'learned friends and sue Mr Currie, are we? To be fair to the nellies, this latest threat lacks the bracing directness of their previous one:
Steyn's freedom is hardly at stake.
Yet.
Bring it on, boys.
|
|
|
Steynposts
|
|
Sunday, 30 December 2007 |
|
Paul Wells tries subtly to suggest that The New York Times might like to take me off Maclean's hands...
|
|
|
Steynposts
|
|
Monday, 24 December 2007 |
|
Thank you to all who've offered their support one way or another re the attempt to, in effect, ban my writing from north of the 49th parallel. As is to be expected, a few cracks in strategy are now beginning to emerge. Kathy Shaidle quotes advice from a friendly lawyer:
I wanted to let you know that linking to non-public officials who may be involved in this process could make things worse. Even if you do not live in Canada, at best it will increase the sympathy of the Tribunal to the complainants. It doesn’t matter if you’re not officially affiliated with Steyn, because they can use it as an example of harrassing behaviour that his articles and books are encouraging.
Kathy says: "Screw that." And I'm inclined to agree, albeit more wussily.
First, as I understand the law (at least according to the high-priced advice of my hotshot QC), it is not possible to be in "contempt of court" in regard to one of these Human Rights Commissions. And, even if it was, along with George Jonas and David Warren and other sane observers, I have been opposed to the HRCs in principle my entire adult life and a two-minute Lexis Nexis search will turn up any number of quotes. So if contempt for the process is likely to increase "the Tribunal"'s "sympathy" to the complainants, it's way too late.
Second, it's worth considering the logic of that lawyer's advice. He's saying that, if we make nice, we might get a fair trial and be acquitted. Sorry, that would be the worst possible outcome. It would legitimate the process, and the usual pussies at The Toronto Star et al would say: See, it proves there's no threat to freedom of speech from the HRC shtick. After all, if a notorious hatemonger like Steyn can get a fair shake, what's the problem?
Here's my bottom line: I don't accept that free-born Canadian citizens need the permission of the Canadian state to read my columns. What's offensive is not the accusations of Dr Elmasry and his pals, but the willingness of Canada's pseudo-courts to take them seriously. So I couldn't care less about the verdict - except insofar as an acquittal would be more likely to bolster the cause of those who think it's entirely reasonable for the state to serve as editor-in-chief of privately owned magazines. As David Warren put it, the punishment is not the verdict but the process. To spend gazillions of dollars to get a win on points would do nothing for the cause of freedom of speech: It would signal to newspaper editors and book publishers and store owners that it's more trouble than it's worth publishing and printing and distributing and displaying anything on this subject, and so it would contribute to the shriveling of freedom in Canada.
This is a political prosecution and it should be fought politically. The "plaintiffs" certainly understand that, ever since the day they went in to see Ken Whyte and demanded money from Maclean's. I want the constitutionality of this process overturned, so that Canadians are free to reach the same judgments about my writing as Americans and Britons and Australians and it stands or falls in the marketplace of ideas. The notion that a Norwegian imam can make a statement in Norway but if a Canadian magazine quotes that statement in Canada it's a "hate crime" should be deeply shaming to all Canadians.
This morning I spent 20 minutes mulling over a couple of offers for overseas rights to America Alone from the Islamic world. It seems that Muslim publishers from Turkey to Indonesia are more robust than Osgoode Hall law students. What a sad comment on the decayed Dominion.
Meanwhile, as I've said before, the best way to show support is to support the beleaguered publishers by taking out a subscription to Maclean's for you or a friend. US and overseas wannabe-subscribers have told us they're having a bit of difficulty getting the website form to acknowledge non-Canadian postal codes. If you have trouble, send us the details and we'll make sure Maclean's sort it out when the Subscription Dept wallahs return to the office on Christmas Bank Holiday First Thursday After Hogmanay, or whenever folks go back to work in Toronto.
Light a candle for free speech in Canada this Christmas. And if your tree catches fire and burns the house down, report it to the British Columbia HRC as a hate crime.
|
|
|
Steynposts
|
|
Saturday, 22 December 2007 |
|
Given that the law students of Law Is Cool support a "human rights" system that prosecutes you for blog comments, it is worth noting that its anonymous editors rewrite blog comments. Over at Ali Eteraz's site, David Reese points out:
They’re falsifying reader comments over at Simard’s blog, http://www.lawiscool.com./
Here, http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/22/steyn-fans-spam-law-is-cool/#comments, I wrote, “A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada’s Muslim communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?” My comment was edited to read, “A question: given the remarks made by many in Canada’s Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities toward homosexuals, when can we expect your complaints to the HRC regarding same?” Despicable.
Simard, whoever is administering the comments section on your blog is a liar. Is it you?
What is to stop the law students of Law Is Cool editing Mr Reese's comment to appear "racist" and then reporting him to the Human Rights Commission? Unlike the larky lads at Law Is Cool, I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if, in rewriting him to alter the clear meaning of what he says, Law Is Cool has not breached Mr Reese's "human rights"? If no apology and clarification is forthcoming, perhaps a complaint to the CHRC is in order.
By the way, M Simard's anonymous chums say we don't allow comments over here. They're welcome to send an e-mail to Mark's Mailbox and we'll reprint it as written. I would be particularly grateful if M Simard could address this question: Why did he and his fellow plaintiffs demand money from Maclean's?
UPDATE: By the way, I was tickled by this from the Law Is Cool nellies:
Steyn’s armies of Conservative bloggers have proved themselves a volatile bunch. Time for this site to move on...
Ah, I see. At Law Is Cool, the statute of limitations kicks in after 24 hours: Time to move on, people to see, blogs to run. But it's different when Daniel Simard demands his own Maclean's cover story in response to one six months earlier. If Law Is Cool is indicative of his nimbleness, I may do the cross-examination myself.
|
|
| | << Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next > End >>
|
|
|
ONE HARDBACK!
TWO HATEMONGERS!
The new book by Ezra Levant with a special introduction by Steyn
Shakedown
Ezra takes you behind the scenes in the Danish cartoons case, the Steyn/Maclean's case, and the Canadian state's war on free speech and real human rights.
Order your copy personally autographed by Mark exclusively from
The Steyn Store
|
|
