Instapundit links to some media reaction as they notice the proceedings.
There is live-blogging on the so-called trial, where Jay Currie wonders:
Reviewing the day, the morning was a write off. The ‘roos let in whatever loony evidence Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph lead through the Dead Sock sitting in the witness chair and it didn’t matter. It didn’t matter because Joseph has not the foggiest idea of what his own case is. Here’s a hint, the case for the complainant is that Macleans published an article which might cause hatred or contempt to be directed at a particular group. It really is pretty straightforward. Prove that Macleans published the article, and prove that it might cause hatred or contempt towards a particular group and you’re done.
Apparently, the aggrieved party and their lawyer are unused to actual real lawyers standing up to them. Needless to say, the tribunal isn't used to anyone standing in the way of continuing their 100% conviction rate.
Yet there is a problem with the ineptness of the aggrieved Canadian Moslem trio:
Real world, we need to lose here and lose big. At this point Ted Rogers and Macleans are ready to run this to the Supreme Court and, in the process, take a run at Taylor and its baleful results. For the first time in nearly two decades we have the case and, the deep pocket defendant, to kill Taylor dead.
I suspect the BCHRT had realized this case was a mutt pretty much as Mohammedan legal titan Faisal Joseph opened his mouth and are now looking for a
reason to kick it.
The commissars of the tribunal may be fanatics but they're not legally blind. They may acquit Steyn, as much as that twists their panties, just to escape the appeals that might end their sweet gig enforcing "human rights" without many Canadians noticing just what they do. Hey, you have to avoid breaking an egg or two, to make an omelette, right?
Yet given the lack of standards and procedures of these courts, if Steyn is set free, couldn't Steyn himself appeal his acquittal? If there are no standards, why can't he express remorse that he isn't being punished and insist on a real court trial?
Or maybe there is an alternative. Remember why Steyn is being charged (from above):
It really is pretty straightforward. Prove that Macleans published the article, and prove that it might cause hatred or contempt towards a particular group and you’re done.
Given that the Sock Puppets and the greatest legal mind since My Cousin Vinnie entered a court room filed this suit in the name of all Moslems, isn't their assault on Canadian traditions of freedom of speech an act that "might cause hatred or contempt" toward Moslems?
If Steyn is acquitted, he should file suit against the Sock Puppets in the name of all Canadian Moslems in all of the provincial and national human rights tribunals. One way or another, a real court should finally see what their parliaments have inflicted on the still-free nation of Canada.
It would be an appeal to sanity. That will still work in Canada's legal system, won't it?
UPDATE: Steyn seems to agree that the complainants are the ones quite possibly causing hatred or contempt toward Moslems:
... insofar as anything has exposed Khurrum Awan to "hatred and contempt," it's not the Maclean's cover story but his own lawsuit. Whether or not it is appropriate (or even legal) for Canadians to be "contemptuous" of the Canadian Islamic Congress's thuggish assault on ancient liberties, the fact is Mr. Awan's lawsuit has earned him far more "contempt" than anything in my article. He should be suing himself. Which would be less wacky than most of the admissibility rulings by the B.C. troika.
Mark Steyn doesn't take this logic far enough. He himself could become a Canadian Saladin, defending the faith from idiots within, if he brings the suit against Awan.
Really, that would only be a little less wacky than the premise that Steyn himself has spawned hatred and contempt for Moslems.
