It would certainly help the cause of the HRC's to have both cases dismissed as quickly as possible.
No argument here.
I see that Globe and Mail editorialist made a typo. Here, I'll fix it for him:
...two high-profile cases involving journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both of whom are best viewed as nuisance complaints.
Check Steyn's latest post. You got owned, sir.
Could you be more wrong? Talk about hypocritical, try doing a little research before spouting off. Hearings have been scheduled.
http://www.steynonline.com/conte...t/view/960/128/
Additionally, Ezra Levant has made the point that if he had failed to attend his hearing, he could have had his property searched and property taken from his possession without a search warrant.
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/la...uman-
right.html
Dawg, as you know (or at least should know), the HRCs are not required to let every complaint through the first gate. In fact in reply to a previous from me, you corrected an oversight of mine by saying it should not have done so.
You confirmed this by saying it should definitely not get past gate 2.
Well even gate 1 opens up the defendant to significant costs in time and money. This is itself an abuse even if, or especially if, it goes no further.
1. An investigator may use the search provisions at any time during the investigation. The powers aren't extinguished if one shows up for an interview. Given his non answers if there was a need for a search before the interview there still would be now.
2a. The federal commission "shall" deal with a complaint and "may" appoint an investigator.
The investigation is discretionary - I suspect one was not undertaken because there is no interview provisions in the Act only search and inspection powers - not required when the words complained of are published in a widely circulated magazine. If there is no investigation then a hearing is mandatory ( shall deal with)
2b. The BC tribunal has no investigative provisions matters proceed directly to hearing.
At the first screening ( i.e. upon receipt of the complaint ) both the Fed and BC commissions can only dismiss the case if there is no triable issue ( i.e. if it falls outside jurisdiction or it is clearly frivolous). That's a very low threshold for a complaint to pass.
- actually there may be powers of interview under the regulations to the Act but they are not available on line.
Because the Act contains specific provisions for a conciliator the primary purpose of the investigator would still seem to be gathering evidence/documents ( again not needed when the evidence is available from the news stand)
If your letter wasn't published, it's your damn fault for writing a boring letter. I've written to the Globe twice - once arguing the unpopular view of an issue, once expounding on an utterly obscure topic - and both letters were published.
Cuz i write good
Man, I get incoherent after midnight. Please mentally correct all infelicities above.
Dr Dawg:
Have you ever been caught in the sights of an HRC or other type of "missionary" tribunal? If you ever are, you had better have lots of free time and huge bags of spare cash to fund your defence. At some point you are going to have to see that the issue of whether there should be legal restrictions on public hate speech is different from whether they should be enforced by these star chambers.
There are all kinds of laws regulating and restricting my behaviour as a neighbour, and thank goodness for that. They work pretty well in most of the country, but Lord save us if anyone ever decides to take those laws out of the courts and set up a Neigbourliness Commission.
Hearings are how you decided if the thing has merit.
What some people here seem to be arguing is that they decided without hearing any evidence.
I would greatly enjoy the uproar when the opposite happened. You know, where they decided that they didn't need to listen to evidence to find someone guilty of something.
That would be quite a show.
"Spreading false news" should be the name of your blog. The "Dawg" needs to go out for a walk.
Just as well the Globe didn't print my letter, "boring" or not. If I'd stuck to the Levant case, I'd have been home free.
Nbob, who is a lawyer, notes that the BC Commission effectively must hear a complaint once it has been lodged. Things seem a little murkier with respect to the federal Commission. But my statement in the Steyn case was clearly wrong, regardless.
That'll teach me. Lesson learned.
One minor point in response to Steyn, though:
"Hearing" is Dr Dawg's word. "Tribunal" is the official word, but in effect the "prosecution" begins in June.
Tribunals have "hearings."
You mean we're going to have read Steyn and Levant to get actual facts about these cases?
I usually can't make it through the first paragraph of one of their bilious and/or hysterical screeds.
Take Kate McMillan's (Canada's best blogger's) wise advice, Dawg. Dare to be wrong!
If you'd stuck to the Levant case, you'd still have missed the point. Whether the procedure in question is called a "hearing" or a "tribunal" or a "screening" is immaterial. Whatever it's called, Levant was legally obliged to turn up and explain himself at it. This cost him money, while the cost to the complainants, no matter how far it goes or how it ends, is guaranteed to be zero. Can you honestly not see how that is a de facto limitation on free speech?
SqT:
You are incorrect. Levant was not obliged to turn up: indeed, he was informed that he could submit a letter if he so chose. Effectively, he was given the opportunity to respond to a complaint before it was even heard. That's called due process, and seems reasonable to me.
Now, if this thing actually proceeds to a hearing, as I've said before, I'll be changing my tune.
That's quite a climbdown, Dr Dawg. Given your error rate I wouldn't bet against you being wrong about Levant's case either.
Whar "error rate?" Please enlighten us all.
In any case, the Levant matter is easily checked, and I even provided a handy reference.
You couldn't hear it (did you remove your "Right Wing Internet Text to Pundit Voice Translator 2000™" from your ear?) but "error rate" was said in a Bill O'Reilly tone..
Sort of like this "Fact: When I disagree with Dr. Dawg he is wrong!"
Anyway, congrats on owning up to your mistake.
And it's no big deal, anyway. After all, Steyn watchers have established entire careers critiquing his rather cavalier approach to matters of fact.
I would like to be different, T-G. : ) At this point, though, I seem to be neck-and-neck with the "MSM." They win Steyn and I win Levant. I hope they are duly excoriated by the former. Fair's fair.
What IP said.
Hey, Peter, come on. I've had scores of letters published in the Globe & Mail. Just not this one. Thank God. : )
Even if Dbob were wrong about the threshold to holding a hearing being relatively low (which he's right about), I still don't see cause for concern if these matters go before the tribunals. The fact is, these are relatively novel and certainly controversial complaints, and there are arguments to be made for and against. Even with a higher threshold standard of merit, one of the interests of the justice system is to examine difficult issues when the appropriate factual matters arrive before a tribunal or a court. This helps develop a foundation for issues in the future against which to judge potential frivolousness.
This means that where there is some inkling of merit, even if it's likely but not certain that the matter will be dismissed, there are definite benefits to continuing the proceeding. The issues at play need to be examined sooner or later. It's not necessarily beneficial to turf all but the most solid complaints, because the margins of where the law applies need to be determined. That's why the thresholds for early dismissal of adjudicative issues, be they complaints before an HRC or lawsuits before a court, are set pretty low.
Taking the opportunity to examine issues when the arrive before a tribunal or court helps provide precedents and therefore certainty in the law. In a sense, when these complaints are (probably) dismissed, then it will be clearer in the future whether similar complaints should go to the tribunal stage. But until that analysis has been completed for the first (or first few) time(s), it rather behooves a serious tribunal to examine the question in depth.
Now this may sound a little bit unfair the person who has to participate in a legal proceeding and ends up being vindicated. The argument that their ordeal (if that word applies) serves a greater good may be little comfort. But on the other hand, truly frivolous or vexatious claims do not meet the necessary thresholds, and to argue that no one should have to participate in a legitimate legal proceedings because they might (or even probably will) turn out after the fact to be without fault doesn't make much sense. By that logic, if there's any doubt in the applicable law, no one should ever show up before a tribunal or court.
Frankly, I'm much more comforted in a system that allows every person to object to proceedings against them than a system that would not. It seems to me that no one seems to grasp that this procedural right - the right to make one's case - is part and parcel with free speech. It seems wrongheaded to argue that getting the chance to speak up in one's own defence is somehow limiting on free speech. And that's what I see some people who complain about this issue doing: arguing not against the existance of the HRC systems (fair enough, I disagree, but there's an argument to be made) but against the fact that Steyn and Levant had their turn to object (and object loudly and freely they
Ahem. I got cut off. :P
As I was saying:
And that's what I see some people who complain about this issue doing: arguing not against the existance of the HRC systems (fair enough, I disagree, but there's an argument to be made) but against the fact that Steyn and Levant had their turn to object (and object loudly and freely they have - what exactly is their problem here, then?). Wouldn't this system be far more Orwellian or Fascist or whatthefuckeveroverblowncomparison if the HRCs just went ahead with their investigations without informing Levant or Steyn or without hearing their side of things?
Rumor-
The brilliance of that post leaves me speechless- little more can be said -well done.
What IP said at 12:45 pm, not what he said at 4:05 am.
Although, come to think of it...
Nbob,
Much thanks. Apologies for calling you "Dbob", I should have scrolled up to verify your handle before hitting the publish button.
SqT
>This cost him money, ----
He's the fool who apparently spent " thousands" and then, by his own admission, didn't follow his lawyer's advise. He need not have spent it.
>---while the cost to the complainants, no matter how far it goes or how it ends, is guaranteed to be zero
First - the "lis" is not between the complainant and the respondent ( or plaintiff and defendant in civil terms). It is between Her Majesty and the respondent. It is the state's objective to prevent discrimination not the complainant's. If it's Her Majesty's objective it is she who should pay for the carriage of the matter ( in most cases -see below)
In this respect, and this one only, it is similar to criminal law where the "lis" is not between complainant and accused. It is the state's objective to preserve the "king's peace" and so it is the crown that pays for the carriage of criminal proceedings.
Two- In Alberta, if the Director dismissed a complaint then the complainant has a right of appeal - at his/her expense. If the appeal is successful then the complainant must take over carriage of the hearing.
That is what happened in the recent Boissoin matter and ( if memory serves ) in the Kane matter as well as a few others.
Nbob, you have been doing stalwart service here and elsewhere clearing up the law on the HRC procedure. Which is important as it underscores why these entities should have nothing whatsoever to do with the regulation of expression. (I am wondering, however, as to your take on Boisson - my understanding was that the investigator - Ms. McGovern - concluded that the matter should not proceed but that the Director of the Commission over-ruled her (apparently without appeal.) But I could be wrong.
Dawg, the winning card has been played again and again at various rightish sites in re Steyn. But I suspect it was easy to miss as you were expecting a degree of fairness and due process which is simply not available before these entities.
The more general question as to whether or not these entities should properly regulate a) freedom of expression and b) freedom of the press, both of which are protected under the Charter, does not, however turn on the procedural niceties; rather it is a simple question of whether we take freedom of expression seriously as a democratic right or if we would prefer to treat it as the equivalent of a landlord/tenant dispute.
With HRC legislation we set the barrier to entry very low indeed - rightly, in my view, for things like employment or housing discrimination. But when it comes to matters of constitutional importance I would suggest that the barrier be set considerably higher. High enough that the onus is shifted to the complainant to demonstrate why, in a free and democratic society, the impugned speech should be prohibited with full costs to the defendant in the event the complainant fails.
Jay -
You confuse the " Director" ( who dismissed the complaint) and the Chief Commissioner ( who allowed the appeal) Here's the history from the decision itself:
1. This matter becomes before the Panel as a result of the complaint filed by Dr. Darren E. Lund (“Dr. Lund”) on July 18, 2002, alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to Section 3 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“the Act”).
2. On Monday, June 17, 2002, the Red Deer Advocate Newspaper, published a letter to the editor entitled “Homosexual Agenda Wicked”, written by Mr. Stephen Boissoin, executive director, Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (CCC). On July 22, 2002, Dr. Lund, a professor at the University of Calgary, filed a formal human rights complaint against Mr. Boissoin and the CCC. Dr. Lund complained that the letter contravened the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (2000) Section 3 on the grounds of sexual orientation and the area of Publications and Notices.
3. The Southern Regional Office of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission initially dismissed Dr. Lund’s original complaint, due in part to not having the proper respondents named in the complaint.
4. Dr. Lund then filed an appeal to the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“the Commission”).
5. On May 25, 2005, the chief commissioner allowed the complaint to advance to the Panel hearing stage in accordance with Section 27(1) of the Act. The hearing Panel was to hear the case, subject to Dr. Lund agreeing to take carriage of the complaint.
Jay,
But I suspect it was easy to miss as you were expecting a degree of fairness and due process which is simply not available before these entities.
Didn't I address this three hours ago and four comments up? I will keep saying it, then: there is no issue about due process. Respondents are provided with the opportunity to respond to the complaint and provide their argument in objection at every level of the process. This is what due process means! If the HRCs performed investigations and made determinations without notifying the respondent and allowing an opportunity to present their side, then there would be due process issue.
Stop saying this.
The more general question as to whether or not these entities should properly regulate a) freedom of expression and b) freedom of the press, both of which are protected under the Charter, does not, however turn on the procedural niceties; rather it is a simple question of whether we take freedom of expression seriously as a democratic right or if we would prefer to treat it as the equivalent of a landlord/tenant dispute.
Charter rights have express limits in the Charter itself, and by common sense all freedoms may have certain limits. The fact that speech may be challenged as stepping over that line is no evidence, in itself, that the legislatures don't take rights seriously.
Equally, the fact that administrative tribunals are in place to resolve these issues, prior to but not absent the possibility of court intervention, is not evidence that rights are not taken seriously. Refugee claims are resolved by tribunal; is this evidence that the fundamental human right to be free from persecution and torture is not taken seriously? Not by itself, no. That argument would dismantle most of the administrative tribunal network in Canada.
The argument just isn't convincing on this reasoning alone. Maybe there is an argument against the HRCs, but this is not it.
Next, again as Nbob explained, after the mediation stage, this is a matter between the state and respondent; there's no place for the complainant to make the case. Clearly the legislatures have decided that moderating harmful speech (you may quibble with the definition of harmful speech in the legislation,; that argument has some teeth) is a job for the state to take up. The reasoning behind this should be self-evident: people subject to hateful speech are unlikely, in many cases, to have the courage and/or resources to fight their oppressors. The legislatures have decided that it's an important enough objective to society as a whole that they should pursue such matters. At that point, it's no longer a person-to-person issue, it's a society-to-person issue. As Nbob said, this aspect is akin to criminal law.
Re costs: the HRCs can order costs as they see fit, like any court.
Oh and-
>But when it comes to matters of constitutional importance
Last time I looked s. 15 (equality) and s. 27 (multiculturalism) were also in the constitution.
Jeez rumor - I hope we're never on opposite sides of a file - I'd have my shorts handed to me .
Oh and another wee tidbit -
I just went through the Albert HRC panel rulings over the last 10 years that involved the evil hate speech section.
Of the 4 ( that four ! ) that went to hearing the complainant had carriage of 3. The only one the Director carried was dismissed.
Thank you Nbob for the history of the Boisson case.
rumor, "This is what due process means!"
Is it? For example (and in general), Are there procedural safeguards in place to protect an individual who is before a HRC?, Can an HRC investigator file a complaint? Are HRC's governed by precedent? Do HRCs follow the Rules of Evidence? Is cross examination permitted? Can the HRC search the premises of an individual before it? Does such a search require a warrant? Is Legal Aid available to an individual before an HRC? Are investigators required to make disclosure of such evidence as they have found prior to a hearing? Can the person before the HRC call witnesses and can they be compelled to testify?
I take your point re the Refugee System in Canada (and isn't it a sight to behold) however, no matter how badly, those tribunals are bound to follow a set of rather detailed rules, are required to follow the rules of evidence and are bound by a substantial jurisprudence.
The HRC's, on the other hand, seem to just be winging it.
Jay,
I'm getting tired of you making assertions without bothering to actually check your facts. The answers to all your questions are easily attainable on the intertubes. In the meantime, refrain from making baseless and frankly bizarre claims such as that the HRC is "winging" it's procedure. That statement is so out of step with reality that I have to stop taking you seriously. All of the HRCs have legislated rules of procedure, for god's sake. There's nary an administrative tribunal that does *not* have established rules of procedure, particularly those tribunals that have been in place for decades. These rules are easily found on the tribunals' respective websites, along with, I note for many of them, case summaries broken down into subject matter including particular procedural questions.
Jay -
Took 8 Minutes on line to answer your questions-(at least as they are applicable to Alberta)
>For example (and in general), Are there procedural safeguards in place to protect an individual who is before a HRC?,
"The Commission, like with most administrative bodies, is entitled to control it’s own procedure, subject always to a requirement to ensure the rules of natural justice are recognized and applied at the appropriate stages of any proceeding." -Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place, 2000 CanLII 3761
>Can an HRC investigator file a complaint?
No -20(1) Any person, except the Commission, a member of the Commission and a person referred to in section 18 [staff employees], who ---may make a complaint to the Commission
Are HRC's governed by precedent?
Yes - Judicial review is a right under s. 37(1) of the Act. Like all quasi-judicial and judicial bodies stare decisis applies.
Do HRCs follow the Rules of Evidence?
30(2)Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.
Is cross examination permitted?
Yes -
27(4) A human rights panel and each member have all the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act.
Can the HRC search the premises of an individual before it? Does such a search require a warrant?
Yes and Yes ( or by consent) for a dwelling -
(2) An investigator may enter and examine a room or place actually used as a dwelling only if
(a) the owner or person in possession of it consents to the entry and examination, or
(b) the entry and examination is authorized by a judge under section 24.
Yes and Sort of -for any other place.
s. 23 gives the investigator a right of entry and search - however upon a refusal the investigator must get authorization from a judge under s. 24
( If the judge grants the authorization a person who refused may be charged with an offense ( obstructing the commission and subject to up to 10 k fine)
"The Legislature has given the applicant broad and extraordinary powers of gathering evidence so that the applicant can resolve complaints quickly and conclusively. The evidence the investigator is thus able to gather, including "coerced testimony", can then be used by the applicant in dealing with the complaint without the safeguards usual to our system of justice. However, the applicant must exercise those powers within the parameters of the statutory and common law. Further, the Legislature has provided a safeguard to the person whose "testimony" the investigator seeks to compel. He can only be compelled to answer an investigator's inquiries if a judge so orders upon being satisfied on evidence that there are reasonable grounds for the investigator to request the information and that the information is relevant to the subject matter of the investigation." - Alberta
Are investigators required to make disclosure of such evidence as they have found prior to a hearing?
Yes- Stinchcombe principles appy
"The fact that the investigation is also used as a settlement tool makes the application of the Stinchcombe principle even more important.
Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Alberta Motor Association, 1998 ABPC 139
Can the person before the HRC call witnesses and can they be compelled to testify?
Once again yes -27(4) A human rights panel and each member have all the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act.
rumour, sorry to exhaust you. See below as to why I am suggesting that "due process" may be a tad attenuated before HRCs.
Nbob, thank you for spending 8 minutes checking out the law in Alberta.
I would suggest that the actions of Richard Warman at the Federal level suggest that one may be an employee of the CHRC and make a complaint. That is, however, being investigated as I type and I'll have news when the investigation is complete. (I note, so Dawg can have the exclusive, the CHRC will neither confirm nor deny Warman worked there.)
Nbob, I suspect you are being just a titch disingenuous with your "human rights panel and each member have all the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act" in answer to whether a person before the HRC can call witnesses. For example, will Ezra be able to call, via the panel, the complainant? Will he be allowed to cross examine the complainant directly. (It would be highly entertaining, at a number of levels, if he was allowed.)
And, I note, you concede that the Rules of Evidence are not actually in effect with respect to the HRC in Alberta
Now, as to precedent, Nbob you should be ashamed of yourself. I didn't ask if the Courts are bound by stare decisis - I know that. I asked if the HRCs themselves were bound. In other words are they obliged to follow their own jurisprudence? You answered a question which was not asked.
So, no rules of evidence, no stare decisis, complaintless complaints, procedure and cross at the discretion of the Commission. Excuse me while I wonder how far we can degrade "due process" before we hit Kafka.
Jay,
1. Much of the information you are looking for is found here:
http://
www.albertahumanrights.ab...Respondents.asp
http://
www.albertahumanrights.ab...out_respond.pdf
Note that at many stages before the possible panel hearing, attempts are made at conciliation between the complainant and respondent. This is markedly different from a court process and resembles an alternative dispute resolution/investigatory process. Respondents can call witnesses at the hearing. Presumably this includes the complainant, in the unlikely event that the complainant would not choose put himself forth as a witness in the first place. Cross-examination is part of the process.
As to stare decisis, a quick sampling of the AHRC panel's decisions should show you that prior decisions are cited as authority and, what should presumably be more pleasing to you, given your higher regard for the judicial process, judicial decisions are cited as binding precedent. I'm not sure why the panels being bound by their own precedents would be of more interest to you than the precedents set by the courts on judicial review of their decisions, but there you go. It would be the odd administrative tribunal that does not refer to its own jurisprudence for guidance (though the odd one does exist in which its parent legislation specifically exempts it from such a burden).
The panel is not bound by the rules of evidence, but this is standard for administrative tribunals. The rules of evidence are cumbersome and time consuming and, therefore, lead to prolonged procedures which are seen to be a burden on the parties. Most tribunals have more flexible rules of evidence to allow for greater efficiency, and because their powers are less severe than the courts. Again, if you wish to argue against this, you're going to be arguing against the whole administrative law system and, therefore, the law of Canada, in which this approach is well received. (Incidentally, matters of evidence are not, legally speaking, matters of procedure but rather matters of substance.)
For your information, "due process" is known as procedural fairness and/or natural justice in Canada, and comprises the following basic rights, which may be enforced along a continuum of stringency depending on the nature of the tribunal. Without doing the research, I would assume that the AHRC panel is held at the higher, more burdensome end of the continuum, due to it being considered a "quasi-judicial" body. Natural justice is roughly summarized in this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Nat...Natural_justice
You can see that the indicia of natural justice are all met in the case of this tribunal, and that the laws of evidence are not normally considered part of this sphere.
2. Who is Richard Warman and what does he have to do with the Levant or Macleans/Steyn cases?
3. I'm satisfied on the procedural justice point and I think that completes my legwork. As
Cut off again... as I was saying, I think there are other arguments to be made against the HRCs, if not necessarily winning arguments. Procedure is not one of them.
Jay -
The stare decisis rule is that courts/tribunals are not bound by the decision of another panel/judge of equal jurisdiction
For example -not too long ago there were different rulings as to what constituted "evidence to the contrary" in impaired driving cases involving straddle readings at the provincial court level.
Are you suggesting because of that the court lacks due process?
--
The rules of evidence are relaxed for the sake of accessibility ( i.e. so parties don't have to retain a lawyer to insure compliance with the Alberta Evidence Act or the principled exception to hearsay rule, etc.)
Due process is not offended because each party knows the case they have to meet - parties are required to disclose the evidence they intend to rely upon at least 21 days ( director) /14 days (respondent) prior to hearing.
While rules of admissibility are relaxed the panel is not excused from the standard of correctness in the use and weight the ascribe to the evidence.
----
I'm no fan of the all in house structure of our commissions and administrative tribunals- most of whom have the power to initiate complaints/investigations on their own motion- but time and time again the structure is upheld upon judicial review.
------
I expect if Levant's matter goes to hearing the director will, as usual, call the complainant or he'll be non suited. The respondent has the right of cross examination.
It would be real rich if Levant pays Mr. Ross to sit silently and stare into space ( like he did at the interview) while he cross examines the complainant - and then hear him complain about the financial hardship he's undergone in having to hire a lawyer !
I'm off to bed gentlemen. I appreciate your points and, Nbob, I agree that having counsel when you propose to state your own case is a waste of money.
More tomorrow; but this is, I think, a rather useful conversation.
(rumour, Richard Warman is a serial complainant to the CHRC as well as an ex-employee of that Commission. He may, and this is unclear, have initiated complaints on his own hook while an employee. He seems to have made a bit of a specialty of posting really nasty stuff to American sites such as StormFront to attempt to find Canadians who agreed with it. He did so under an assumed name in at least one instance and there is a strong suggestion - identical IPs - that he did on at least one other occasion. Warren Kinsella thinks he's a hero but Warren's got his own problems and they are getting bigger as we speak.)
"While rules of admissibility are relaxed the panel is not excused from the standard of correctness in the use and weight the ascribe to the evidence."
It's worth pondering that sentence a bit. The rules of evidence in court were not designed to provide brainteasers for lawyers and cranky, impatient judges from bygone eras. They are there in recognition of the fact that adjudicators are flawed human beings who can be biased like all of us. It is well understood in court that the parties need protections from the court as well as each other. Adjudicators who blithely bend the rules, admit dicey or irrelevant evidence or run the proceedings as if everyone were there for a nice cup of tea and a chat, and then tell themselves they can judge the appropriate weight of what they hear, are arrogant egotists. It happens all the time in family law with appointees directly from the family law bar.
But so persuasive are rumour's and Nbob's cases that natural justice is being followed that one wonders what the point of these Commissions is in the first place. The case for administrative tribunals that target certain subjects can be persuasive when the subject is very complex (tax) or the constituency is large and limited (immigration), but why do we need them to enforce straightforward laws of general application. I suggest we, both fans and foes, know very well that they are and are intended to be agents of change driven by defined intellectual communities rather than adjudicators of existing, well-defined positive laws. How many Richard Warrens are there hanging around the criminal courts and filing multiple private prosecutions to keep the streets safe?
BTW, super thread.
Dawg:
Going on the evidence of this post, 50% correct implies you would are doing no better (in terms of accuracy) than posting random entries drawn from boxes labelled "true" and "false".
Cameron:
Who is Bill O'Reilly?
It would certainly help the cause of the HRC's to have both cases dismissed as quickly as possible.
Brendan | 02.07.08 - 11:10 pm
======================
The exquisite beauty of this whole affair is these ridiculous agencies have been put into a catch 22 situation. If the cases go forward, Steyn/MacLeans and Levant will have made their point. If they are dismissed, the HRCs will be seen to have made a decision to cover their own asses and thereby avoid a charter challenge.
===================================
I see that Globe and Mail editorialist made a typo. Here, I'll fix it for him:
...two high-profile cases involving journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, both of whom are best viewed as nuisance complaints.
North of 49 | 02.07.08 - 11:29 pm
================
Actually, 49, the correct word is which. It refers to the "cases". Steyn and Ezra did not bring the complaints to these commissions which generated the cases which are now before the HRC/Ts. It was the touchy, self pitying Islamicists Elmasry and Soharwardy who initiated the complaints. It is their cases that are viewed as nuisance complaints.
Cameron:
Who is Bill O'Reilly?
NR | 02.09.08 - 4:16 pm
==================
Bill O'Reilly is a television personality employed by Fox News. It has become a leftwing meme to accuse those they disagree with of obtaining all their information from Fox News. I'm betting Cameron rarel, if ever, even watches the program. I've been accused many times by the little meme monsters of being a Fox News lover, when in fact, I don't subscribe to any cable network and my television is in storage. Just goes to show the lack of depth and capacity for original thought that exists among the lefty meme monsters.
NR:
Nice to know that life and investigation don't consist of wandering through a field of boxes holding "true" and "false" tokens. In this case, I did as well as the media. But I like to think that I normally do much better.
Had you really never heard of O'Reilly?
Louise:
Pro-Americans and those who support democracy in the Middle East are always welcome here. : )
I agree with your summing-up. Either way, Levant and Steyn will be able to claim a victory. Undeserved, to be sure (both will get off because there are no grounds for things to happen otherwise), but that's not really the point, is it?
Louise, at some point did I stipulate that I did?
Boy that deflates that gotcha moment for you a touch eh?
but why do we need them to enforce straightforward laws of general application.
Because the justice system is prohibitively resource-draining for most people.
Bring on legicare, say I.
Dawg,
> Levant was not obliged to turn up: indeed, he was informed that he could submit a letter if he so chose.
Ah, one of those letters that can be written in literally no time at literally no cost, no doubt.
I would like to say, as well, that I don't congratulate you for owning up to your mistake. It's what civilised grown-ups are supposed to do. It's not supposed to be remarkable, and I'm surprised you haven't asked those who are congratulating you to stop being so condescending. How old do they think you are? Five?
Peter,
> It is well understood in court that the parties need protections from the court as well as each other.
Brilliant. Thank you. Every single argument I ever have with anyone about legislation or the enforcement thereof boils down to the fact that they don't understand that fact.
"Wouldn't this system be far more Orwellian or Fascist or whatthefuckeveroverblowncomparison if the HRCs just went ahead with their investigations without informing Levant or Steyn or without hearing their side of things?", asks Rumor.
Yes, that's true. A system like that would be even more Orwellian and Fascist than one which merely compels them to justify their thoughts and writing before a state-appointed prosecutor/judge. But that's hardly the point. Anybody who has made even a brief study of 20th century history will get a chill up their back at the thought of what can happen when a government gets into the business of micro-regulating its citizens' right of expression.
(It's not my intent to suggest that we're on the brink of a Stalinist police state. However, if we were, people would be being called before state tribunals to explain themselves, wouldn't they? In the old USSR they called it "denunciation".)
The fact that HRCs don't shoot people for incorrect thinking and politics, instead simply tarnishing and exhausting them, isn't really anything to celebrate, any more than a thief who only steals what he needs should be celebrated as a man of virtue. He is better than a man who steals with abandon for its own sake, but he is still a thief; and the HRC is still sitting in state-sanctioned judgement of my thoughts and words.
Mark Steyn wrote, and I'm paraphrasing, that a man about to go over the edge of a waterfall meets his doom not at the moment he slips over the edge, but well upstream, when he gets trapped in the current without even realizing it.
Commenting by HaloScan
