This week Andrew Coyne has been liveblogging the proceedings at the B. C. Human Rights Commission in Vancouver, where his employer, Macleans Magazine, is before the HRC beaucrats to answer Naiyer Habib's complaints about "The Future Belongs to Islam," an article by Mark Steyn published in Macleans, October 20, 2006. Naiyer Habib is the BC board director for the Canadian Islamic Congress, and filed the complaint on behalf of all Muslims in British Columbia.
In an interview with National Review Coyne says:
My hope is that it will go to appeal — in other words, I’m hoping that we lose this at the hearing level and that we appeal it to a proper court of law, as opposed to these quasi-judicial tribunals, and at that proper court of law that we make the constitutional argument that this is an infringement of our charter rights to freedom of the press. I believe that’s what we’ll do if we lose the case.
Other observations by Coyne:
...they have mystifying rules of evidence, if any. They make it up as they go along as to what gets allowed into evidence and what doesn’t. And I’m sure they’re not used to having such scrutiny, with many high-powered lawyers in the room. It’s pretty much a travesty.
For more buzz in blogland about this, see Free Mark Steyn!
After browsing a few links from FMS, my only comment would be that by challenging Canada's tradition of free speech in this HRC way, Muslims have done themselves way more harm in the Canadian public than an article like Steyn's would do in a dozen years.
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry writes, on the CIC website about "Smart Integration." I've guess they've just given themselves a lesson in how NOT to do it.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment