Sharia implementation in a Canadian court. "Maclean's counsel not allowed to question conduct of Islamic congress," by Sunny Dhillon for the Globe and Mail, June 5 (thanks to Twostellas):
VANCOUVER — Attempts by Maclean's counsel Julian Porter to question the B.C. director of the Canadian Islamic Congress about the organization's conduct were deemed inappropriate by tribunal judges on Thursday, undercutting the lawyer's line of questioning.B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal is meeting this week because of a complaint filed by the province's CIC director, Naiyer Habib, as well as the organization's national president, Mohamed Elmasry. The complaint came in response to an article written by Mark Steyn that appeared in Maclean's in October, 2006. Titled The Future Belongs to Islam, the piece has been blasted by Muslim critics for spreading “Islamophobia.”
On the stand Thursday, Dr. Habib detailed how his role as a CIC leader made him want “to do something” in response to Mr. Steyn's article, which alleges the religion will soon take over the Western world.
But when Mr. Porter began his cross-examination and attempted to question Dr. Habib about a fellow CIC member's trip to Libya, he was rebuffed by the tribunal. After a recess, Mr. Porter was told the “conduct of the CIC is not an issue in this complaint” because “Dr. Habib filed the complaint himself,” not on behalf of the organization. A frustrated Mr. Porter muttered that the decision would shorten his cross-examination considerably. [...]
Although he steered clear of the line-by-line analysis of Mr. Steyn's work that marked the previous day's hearing, Dr. Habib claimed the piece “demonized Islam” and was “full of hate.” And he read aloud a series of postings from an American website – which has no affiliation to Maclean's or Mr. Steyn – that favourably commented on Mr. Steyn's article and negatively commented on the Muslim community.
Ah. Guilt by association games. Nothing new there.
" We have ways to make you like us..."
Could anything be achieved if Maclean's counsel Julian Porter just walked out in protest? Just wondering...
Pundita brings up an important point:
Did Habib file a complaint in his own right, as distinct from Elmasry's complaint?
A conviction will result in an appeal that may go all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court...where the entire enterprise of these "Human Rights Commissions" will be rightly deemed unconstitutional.
Mr. Porter is 'rebuffed' by the panel for asking questions about the conduct of the Canadian Islamic Congress because the CIC is not a party to the complaint.
However, the tribunal has no problems with the propriety of Mr. Habib reading into the record postings from an American web-site.
So a bunch of anonymous Americans agreeing with Mr. Steyn is accepted as evidence of a human rights violation, while no scrutiny of the orginization that Mr. Habib represents is allowed.
Well, don't worry, I'm sure the panel of judges have no preconcieved notions of this case and will decide it with complete fairness, rationality, and honesty.
Off with his head!
Cornelius, you have a much higher opinion of the sanity of the Canadian Supreme Court than I do.
Cornelius the Supreme Court id full of leftards. Pray for us all.
Read all the sordid details here:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/06/liveblogging-the-macleans-trial-v-stand-and-deliver/
It's beyond belief. Way beyond.
"Favourable comments" about a magazine article you dislike, and "unfavourable comments" about your own community, are now felonious inappropriateness, and the childish insistence that they are so is taken seriously in a court of law.
Islam tends to throw nonsense like this into relief in Western democracies, now that it's here in force, but I'm not sure Islam is the problem with this phenomenon. This looks like what Robert Hughes called "The Culture of Complaint", in which not only relativism, but sheer whining, is the entirely respectable order of the day.
One would think that the defense attorney in the Steyn case would have every right to use his cross-examination to show that Islam IS what Mark Steyn says that it is, Steyn's guilt being entailed on the proposition that it is NOT. If Mark Steyn is found guilty of the preposterous charge against him (and I think it very likely that he will: you have all read by now about British Columbia's boy scout legal provisions regarding defamation) the decision should certainly be appealed as bad law on some such basis as this.
The Muslims were offended by the pictures of ....well.... Muslims, in burkas, on the front cover of Macleans Magazine. How hateful.
Actually, this is an instance where the more egregious the court's affront to reason and normal Western jurisprudence, the better. Remember, McClean's isn't out to win their case, but to dismantle the kangaroo court.
Before the end of the fourth year of an Obama presidency, we too will have Human Rights Tribunal's silencing any voice not friendly to Islam.
Macleans will be found guilty and move on to a higher court.
The next sham will take place in Alberta re: Ezra Levant's 'hateful' act of publishing the Danish Mohammad cartoons two years ago. The lid will come off at that point, guaranteed.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/friday-updates-and-a-look-ahea.html
Muslims are quite blameless in this sorry episode. They are merely carrying out their jihad, as they've done seemingly forever; the fact that they found no foes in Canada apart from Steyn and Macleans is not their fault.
While I have issues with Steyn's conclusions about Islam's power and future relevance, I don't wish to see him brought though this.
I do however, relish seeing Macleans dragged through this muck naked and at high speed. The far left media laid down with Islamism, let it get up with the lice it so richly deserves. Ironically it likely pursued the "Islam is our Future" story in an exorcise in wishful thinking rather than as any attempt to warn non-Muslims.
"On the stand Thursday, Dr. Habib detailed how his role as a CIC leader made him want “to do something” in response to Mr. Steyn's article, which alleges the religion will soon take over the Western world."
Muslims always want "to do something" when the truth about them gets out...
...to do something usually involves violence..It is the Islamic way.
"Sharia implementation in a Canadian court."
Just to be absolutely clear, the quasi-judicial entity in question is not an actual "court," as in a court of law.
It is, rather, a "Human Rights Tribunal" (HRT). The one in B.C., where the "case" was heard this week, has 3 leftist activist panelists, not judges. (There are similar institutions throughout the provinces and at the national level, and they are stacked with leftist activists. The institutions by their very nature are attractive to leftist politically-correct hard-multiculturalist totalitarians). Truth is no defence there. Good faith, intent...none of that matters. There are no rules of evidence. Actual harm to the complainants does not have to be shown. (I'm not kidding!) If the complainants say that they were offended by Steyn's book excerpt published in Maclean's, Maclean's is guilty. If some yahoos on unrelated websites (even websites located in the U.S. and Europe), commenting on Steyn's piece, post nasty comments about Muslims and Islam, Maclean's is guilty.
The only factor that may inhibit these three leftist activists from ruling against Maclean's is the consideration of the probable enormous public outrage that would ensue in response to such a decision. Many Conservatives and even some Liberals here are calling for a sweeping abolition of the entire HRC/HRT system. A ruling against Maclean's would probably result in some kind of major corrective action against the HRC/HRT system, so the three leftist panelists may stop short of ruling against Maclean's in this case, in an attempt to hold on to their power.
From the "tribunal," from the closing statement of one of Maclean's lawyers, Julian Porter:
"...Remember these five days have been about Maclean’s vital detailed opinion. It is what
journalism does for liberty. Part of the essential trade of ideas and argument. Argument, fierce
argument, dissent, contrariness – the very tocsin of liberty."
"And this said on June 6, the day of the Normandy landings."
"Dr. Ayoub, calling on the American injunction, that you cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre.
Oh yes you can, you must if in your considered view there is a fire. It is a duty to cry fire."
It's positively Orwellian. Too many Canadians must be insane. Thank God our rights are much stronger in America. We all must help Canadian bloggers get this out to the world. Bludgeon the HRC through the blogosphere, continue to mock and expose their lawbreaking. We must keep educating people about this stuff so we stay far away from that PC craziness.
This whole Steyn, Levant and the Canadian bloggers V Mark Warman thing may end up being the first death knell, the beginning of the end of the HRC's lawless actions.
Canada's Supreme Court and Parliament will eventually be getting involved I imagine. I certainly hope so.
Let real Lawyers battle it out in argument. Of course the Left doesn't want this. They know they have the weaker case.
I can't wait to see a tape of Steyn in front of the commission. The one with Ezra Levant was a real hoot. Ezra skewered them. I hope Mark will too.
Mark Steyn is totally excellent, someone MUST give him his own show!
We should all go hear him speak if we ever get the chance.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe likes
human rights commissions
that violate human rights
while claiming to protect them
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
real freedom of speech
an American concept
which is NOT for Canada
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Now!
.
USpace
:)
.
"Ah. Guilt by association games. Nothing new there."
lol-this is from the same Robert Spence who refers to ISNA as "unindicted co-conspirator" to terrorism and smears all Muslims as terrorists bent on destroying the west
Well, either ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator or it isn't. Has Robert got his facts wrong, for once? If he has, it's a first, as far as I know.