And not very well either.

Dont expect much....this is limited apparently to existing evidence.

This wont be what some have been hoping for, not like Ezra's situation where it was a free for all.

My suspicion is you would need to appeal a conviction or bring seperate suit to get the whole thing reviewed. Process likely dictates that this is just a loose end meeting. But important in that it probably puts it one step closer....procedure and process, ironic that they are part of rule of law. In the right hands they are the bulwark of fair trials in the wrong hands they are kafkaesque tools.

This Kady O'Malley seems like a bit of a dipshit.
Lousy blogging, or a lousy venue. Hard to tell which, probably a combination.
Macleans pays her, that's funny in itself.

Kady O'Malley calls herself 'balanced neutral' when it comes to Section 13 of the HR Code.
Wonder how 'balanced' her reporting would be if say an EGALE 'person' claimed harrassment by a Roman Catholic paper.
Just putting it out there.

Kadey O'Malley @ 9:48:06 AM:

"...The lawyers are now bickering with each other, and the judge, over various letters that may or may not have been cc'd to all parties. No one else seems to know whether this is important or not; most of us are coming into this so late that we're having enough trouble following the main evenÞ [sic] without worrying about these subplots."

Agreed, Kathy, this is lousy blogging:

"...most of us are coming into this so late...":

Duh.

Kadey, this issue has been on the blogosphere for MONTHS. You'd think you might have put yourself in the loop, seeing as you're being paid to live blog this hearing. So far, I've learned very little...back to Kadey's mangled live blog.

Correction to above post: Kady O'Malley

I know this woman's beat is Ottawa, but just because the venue is Ottawa, why is she blogging this?

If I'd gotten that gig, I like to think I'd have boned up on the names of those involved the night before :-)

You just have to go to Ezra's site to get up to speed.

From the content qand quality of the "live"blogging, I thought it was just an average Jane/Joe covering it because they were around and had the day off or something. You know, the chit chat kind of stuff that pops into your head (some call verbal diarhea). If this is professional journalism then I am glad I haven't read Macleans in a heck of a long time.

kady o'malley is a Liberal, raised and reared in the utopian morass of Trudeaupia. She doesn't think; she reacts to her brainwashing.

So, her 'live blog' is actually an outline of How A Young BrainWashed Liberal 'Thinks'.

That includes her refusal to print the last name of LeMire's lawyer, excusing herself by saying she'd mispell it. So much for welcoming multiculturalism. As a professional, furthermore, Ms O'Malley ought to know the professional names of the lawyers and not reduce their status as lawyers by referring to them only by their first name.

These include her images of opposition to the HRC as bored skinheads with shaved heads. The fact that intellectuals, lawyers, professionals, oppose the HRCs - she ignores that.

Her ignorance of the Act, of how it operates, and what is at stake, is profound. This, is the Liberal mindset. She doesn't have a clue what is going on...

By the way, there is an excellent commentary on how Trudeau wrecked Canada. Pierre Elliott Obama, by Lionel Chetwynd, in today's National Post.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=397709

It shows how Trudeau, who was a Platonist, set up Canadians as hapless Peasants, to be ruled by himself and his Philosopher-Kings. Ms O'Malley is a good example of a Liberal peasant, ie, someone bereft of any critical thinking capacity.

Kathy, exactly my question as I read further mangled testimony by O'Malley: Why the He** would Maclean's give the job of live blogging this very important HRC Tribunal to a rookie reporter--either that, or a very inept one?

O'Malley has shown her colours more than once: Ho hum. Yawn. She has shown zilch interest in the larger issues at stake here, and is far too flippant and "whatever" for me.

I guess we'll get the real goods from Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

Over to Ezra's sight...

For once, I don't think I'm in agreement with Kathy: this live blog is not being done "not very well". It's being done execrably! (From the evidence, I spend more time preparing for the one hour Catechism class I teach once a week than Ms O’Malley has bothered to expend on this landmark hearing.)

Kady O'Malley's obviously an idiot and no professional: for starters, and among other oversights, she arrived not knowing the full name of Barbara Kulaszka, Lemire’s lawyer (she says she’ll just call her “Barbara”) and she thinks the proceedings are in a court before a judge: I believe it’s a Canadian Human Rights (sic) Tribunal with a Chairman.

Then she writes of the proceedings as if they were a poorly executed kiddie play . . . giggle, giggle, yawn, yawn . . . let’s get ON with it. This stupid woman appears to have no idea at all of the gravitas of the situation. Far more hangs in the balance here than Kady being aggrandized for being cool by her Whatever Generation buddies.

So far, I’m disgusted with this travesty of coverage—and by Macleans, which will be in the dock, itself, quite soon. I hope, like the good fairy in Sleeping Beauty, that Mark Steyn will redeem Macleans’s disreputable representation so far. What a disappointment.

Her favourite expression seems to be, "oh goodie! Break time again!"

Good lord! If I showed up for a business meeting as ill prepared as Kady obviously is, I would lose my job!

Or in the words of Mark Twain (I think): It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

O'Malley @ 11:29:42 AM:

The woman next to me has literally fallen asleep. She looks so peaceful.

...and @ 11:42:49 AM:

The CHRC lawyer asks for yet another ten minute break to go over yet another document with the witness. At this rate, we may be here for hours.

Poor Kady. 'Guess there won't be time to buy that dress and those shoes today... ;-(

In O Malley's defence....this is typical of her style. She live blogs committee meetings and has a conversational message to a friend style.

You may not like it but it is consistent with her other work.

The regular Macleans reporters wouldnt do this stuff, except maybe Wells.

So you can blame the assignment editor or the editor in chief, Mr Coyne, if you wish. She is delivering the goods from their perspective, and remember as an organization Maclean would hardly be corporately neutral to this.

I suspect these meetings are tough to keep interesting. You will get more considered and crafted pieces from Steyn and Gillies, as that is their job.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with O Malley just setting expectations.

Hmmm...they went for a ten minute break an hour ago, and no comments since.

Maybe she went for a walk and got lost. She did say:

A beaming, besuited gentleman was on hand as soon as I stepped off the elevatot to wave me in the right direction - which was fortunate, given my unerring ability to get hopelessly lost even when confined to a single office building floor.

Yes, this woman is prime candidate for doing dishes at home in the kitchen.

What is it with those bloody easterners? Our free speech rights are under assault, and these losers can't even stay awake? Those people are friggin lemmings and a disgrace to the nation.

I don't care what comes of that dog and pony show. If I get dragged before a kangaroo court the way Ezra did, I am taking a gun to the meeting and leaving the cam corder at home.

Bungholes!

Given that journalistic errors by her fellow Ottawa Hill reporters (Akin and Erikson) have conveniently gotten them transfered to Toronto, one wonders if that might be her goal too.

Isn't she from Tawranna?

They've got a fluff 'whatever' blogger on it? Like, OMG, ur my BFF!!!

Congrats, Jim (12:55PM). You just gave Warren Kinsella an entire week's worth of posts...

11:42AM and MIA.

She's puttin in CBC hours.

stephen, I don't think you can excuse Kady's errors to 'conversational style'. She's being paid as a professional reporter. I don't know how she got that job, but...

1)She ought to have researched the situation thoroughly, so that she knows the issue of the HRCs and their role, the HRAct and Section 13.1, the controversies, and people involved. She knows absolutely nothing and is reduced to

2)talking about who was 'nice' to her; who looked 'funny', who was bored, who was falling asleep, who was angry.

Nothing about the issues. Nothing. And she is being paid to do this?

I've seen her on either Newman or Duffy; she's as vapid and empty of thought as she is here, focused on 'people talk' and hasn't a clue about issues.

C'mon ET .... Issues?

You know very well that if she did talk about the issues she would be completely into the Warman Kamp....best that she sticks to things that stick in her head.

"Those people are friggin lemmings and a disgrace to the nation."

Many of the people posting at this website and resisting hrc's happen to be easterners. Shove it up your ass, jimmy boy.

What is the matter with McLean's? Why would they send this silly shallow girl to such an important trial? Freedom of speech should be more important than that for the organization that is on the docket also. Maybe McLean's wants people to go over to Ezra or Mark. Maybe that is the 'method to their madness'. Must be.

I got an email from Kady. As of 2 pm, they still hadn't resumed. She said she would return as soon things got underway.

A commenter over at Daimnation says that the clown known as Dr. Dawg is in attendance.

Don't miss the second part (its at the bottom). She's apologizing:

"While I've got the chance, I just want to apologize for, alternately, mangling the names of the various parties and witnesses, or making up my own ones entirely. I'll go back and correct the record when I'm done, but at the moment, I'm more concerned about keeping up with the testimony."

I think quite a bit of this criticism is from people who HAVE NEVER LIVE BLOGGED ANYTHING IN THEIR LIVES THEMSELVES. Or at least for this large on audience.

Chill, folks.

christopher rivers at March 25, 2008 2:13 PM

I concur with your comment in it's entirety.

c rivers, agreed.

The Media has used East-West quarrels to divide and conquer for decades.

IMO, it is not the E-W peoples who are at odds - it is the E-W politics.

I know a lot of people have a lot invested in this hearing, in today's process, but once again I ask that people keep calm and realistic.

Kady O'Malley is not an "issues" reporter.

No matter who reports on this, it cannot be what everyone hopes, because hopes have been set so very high. The gravitas of this meeting is something that might not be obvious to someone who has not spent evening after evening debating these issues and honing their perspective.

The mere fact that this is being liveblogged is a huge thing. To the overwhelming majority of Canadians this issue is not on the radar.
However the liveblogging is done, it is better than no liveblogging at all. Perhaps Kady O'Malley will take the opportunity to look more closely into the issue.

Inflammatory rhetoric [JIM - you bringing a gun to what? Where? WTF? Are you real or a troll] is counterproductive to the cause we are trying to advance. Insulting the liveblogger is counterproductive. Ranting and raving is counterproductive.

Would you rather Macleans ignored this?

Anger and frustration expressed mindlessly serve no purpose except those of our opponents. Anger and frustration harnessed to fuel patience and persistence will win the day.

Kinda odd that an issue that affects THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR LIVES AND FREEDOM!!11!! is unfolding in Ottawa right now, and yet the most popular and influential conservative blog in Canada is...back home at home on the farm, linking to Macleans' coverage.

Even your five foot friend is nowhere to be found, except in your comments threads, liveblogging Kady O'Malley's liveblogging of THE BIGGEST HREAT TO OUR LIVES AND FREEDOM!!11!!

Like I said, kinda odd. You two broke or something?

I've culled the entire post and, to save the rest of you some time, here's the money line: "the one hour break... is so very welcome - that's more than enough time to forage for datesquares."

Yum.

And Nanaimo bars, too; Canada's gift to the world.

Double-Yum!

ET,

That may well be, I am just saying this is her style. She is reporting and not analyzing....isnt that what they are supposed to do.

Once again, I am neither here to bury her or prasie her I am just saying she is reporting in relative real time what she is hearing. And yes it does have an OMG/BFF feel to it....whatever!

Age thing. Many of the live blogs I have read on the US presidential debates and other events have the same "atmospheric" quality to it. She is tapping it out on a blackberry I suspect.

Having done this from tradeshows for the people back at the office I can tell you there isnt time for analysis just notes. She does better than me getting in actual sentences.

As for the lack of research....sure. Once again, I wouldnt get to worried about it, her job is to go from committee room to committee room and document. Read the rest of her entries and you'll see what I mean.

Once again just saying this is her style, room for imporvement? Sure a little more familiarity with the subject would help, but who knows, the charge from her editors might be to walk in cold and just observe and report.....I dont know. But this isnt a Kady O Malley thread, unlike the much missed Hurricane Krista thread :-)

Back to the issue though....it sounds like Lemire's lawyer is starting to put the pieces of their case in place brick by brick. Sounds like the witness is a little surly. Kady is actually a good canary in the coal mine....if she is unaware of previous facts then if the story becomes clear to her then lawyer is doing a good job....if she is still confused at the end of it all then maybe the case wasnt well made.

Anyway, it isnt televised so you'll have to live off her electronic droppings.

To be fair to Kady, the quality of her liveblogging has picked up in her part 2 post. And she issued an apology for any messed up names and promised to go back and clean them up later.

Maybe she got some feedback during the 11:42AM break and decided to try a little harder.

Fun fact. She can't be all bad:
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp903.htm

Now we are getting some interesting details...

2:18:27 PM
So why *was* he on freedominion.ca before there was a complaint? Because there was the *potential* for a complaint to come in, he says - prompting muffled gasps from the group beside me, which includes the two founders of Free Dominion.

So why *was* he on freedominion.ca before there was a complaint? Because there was the *potential* for a complaint to come in, he says - prompting muffled gasps from the group beside me, which includes the two founders of Free Dominion.

Contrast with the CBC, which gets thousands of real complaints about its anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-socialist biases.

But the CBC isn't a conservative organization, is it?

So can someone explain to me why the Commisshhhh would go after Freedominion.ca? I understand why they were snooping around stormfront but how did they make the leap to a message board without a complaint?

There was some testimony about Jadwarr being outed on stormfront as a commission memeber and being on Freedominion???

Maybe someone can clarify.....much obliged in advance.

"PRE-CRIME" INVESTIGATION ADMITTED BY chrc FLUNKY"

""2:15:23 PM
Under questioning, Steacy remains adamant that he *had* to join the various sites, including freedominion.ca, in order to use the search engine and access the full site. He also claims that there were "security concerns" about the safety of CHRC staffers working on "hate files," which is why he logged in to see what had been posted about JadeWarr's identity.

2:18:27 PM
So why *was* he on freedominion.ca before there was a complaint? Because there was the *potential* for a complaint to come in, he says - prompting muffled gasps from the group beside me, which includes the two founders of Free Dominion.

Now Doug Christie is on his feet, and expressing grave concern over the fact that a CHRC representative was investigating the site before a complaint has been made. Barbara K wants to know *who* - othe than Gentes - was considering making a complaint, and Steacy refuses to answer."

The mere fact that O'Malley is live-blogging is not a huge thing in and of itself, lori, and in fact I would suggest that her utter lack of preparation or knowledge of the background of the proceeding, or of the issues underlying it, means she's essentially letting the air out of the tires.

O'Malley at the Malta Conference: "My gawd, I'm soo bored, and these chairs are too hard... Okay, basically, what just happened was that some guy was droning on about the campaign against the "shermans" (?!) and I asked what that meant and he shushed me. Now he's looking at a map of -- omigod, where'd he get that haircut? It's sooo 1920's..."

O'Malley covering an important moment in Canadian Free speech history: "Once again, Barbara is reading a lengthy excerpt from her big binder...it's apparently from Warman's past testimony...and some document he submitted at a past hearing, but I don't think anyone is really listening to her at this point. She's trying to establish that Warman was aware that the JadeWarr account belonged to a CHRC staffer, so she has to read it into the record, but it doesn't make it any less tedious to hear. Finally, she gets to her question..."

O'Malley covering the siege at the Polish Post office in 1939: "Overheard: A woman wailing. I seem to have misplaced my gum. Okay, there's all this racket and everything...I hear a bunch of men shouting...these potatoes have gone bad..."

Referring to Barbara Kulaszka: "...thanks to a very kind reader, I can now write out her full last name -- Kaluska -- without fear of horrific misspellings..."

"Tuesday, March 25, 2008
DEAN STEACY - 007

"Mr. Steacy's assistant is not here today," said Margot Blight, referring to the Oriental woman who had led him in and assisted him at the last hearing..

Before the examination could continue, Margot Blight, the Commission's lawyer, complained that the defence was seeking to introduce new evidence on the Anne Cools issue. Mr. lemire has charged that Richard Warman posted a scurrilous attack on the Black Canadian senator under one of his numerous assumed identities."
http://blog.freedomsite.org/

LMAO EBD. Point taken, but I'd still much rather have this kind of coverage than no coverage at all.

I don't think journalism is ever what we think it should be, or what imagine it used to be, but it's what we've got to work with, so make the best of it.

And I think that her coverage is improving. Maybe she is reading this blog and realizing that she is dealing with serious stuff. And in fairness, having tried to explain this thing to reasonably intelligent family members and friends, I have mostly encountered a vague sense of "why are you getting so worked up" from them. Maybe it's my lack of ability to express myself, or the brainwashing so deep in the system, or the fact that our clarity comes from months and years of grappling with these things, not overnight... regardeless, I say we cut her some slack.

Lori @ 3:16 pm - "Maybe she is reading this blog and realizing that she is dealing with serious stuff."

Or maybe she is finally catching on to the way HRC's function - without due process inquisitions - and a small light is flickering in Ms Kady's thought process!

Try Deborah Gyapong's blog for other coverage.

lori. An OMMAG. I'm not asking for a live blog about issues. I'm aware that reporting a hearing isn't an analysis of that hearing. I'm asking only for a reasonably (note that word) open and intelligent blog.

Kady is already 'on the side of the Warman, Kinsella types'. She's already, without being aware of it, on the side of the necessity of Philosopher-King Rulers who bear the onerous task of deciding, for we who are peasants, what we may think about, read about, hear about, speak about.

You can see that in her comments about the pro-free speech people being 'skinheads'; in her inability to spell the name of Lemire's lawyer.

What I'm asking for is commentary that reports what is said. Not her observations on their dress code, their sleep patterns, their emotions. Just the facts, ma'am.

EBD's examples show the problem with having a Kady as reporter. Again, how the heck did she get her job?

That it's unrealistic to expect a quasi judicial tribunal to conduct the same sort of sting operations as law enforcement without providing the same protections that would be given to the accused if it was a criminal investigation?

I don't know why it would be unrealistic. Any suspect or defendant, no matter how despicable their character or crime, has the right that investigators, prosecutors and judges will follow the rules. If the defendant has truly committed a crime, there is no need to plant evidence or otherwise attempt to frame him.

ET,

Ulm, I dont know if O Malley is in anyones camp...hence my suspicion her charter is to show up to these things cold 9but I could be wrong).... Kinsella already tried to spank her for showing some level of support for "freespeechers" and unfettered commission powers. So having warren mad at her cant make her all bad ;-)

As for calling them skinheads....well, I am not there, but are you open to the possibility that they might actually have had shaved heads....fair point that this is fashionable these days and says squat about your politics...they might also be skinheads. Once again not there, cant confirm or deny.

I wouldnt read anything into a column written by Kady other than what is on the page....it isnt that deep.

The disturbing possibility that sites have been investigated because of comments that investigators planted has been rumbling just barely beneath the surface for a long time now. The readily-available (and now over one year old) transcripts of Mr. Kulaszka's cross examinations of Steacy et al show Ms K deftly closing in on the issue.

Finally, today, we see the hard-evidence that this -- almost-funny -- scenario of different investigators investigating a third party because of the other investigator's respective comments may actually have occurred: The HRC received a complaint about comments by "Estate"; "Estate" was actually a police officer.

O'Malley: "I'm sort of losing the thread here, though. Not sure exactly what the antics of Edmonton and Southern Ontario cops has to do with Warman v. Lemire, except that it demonstrates that not everyone who posts racist crap on the internet is, in fact, a racist."

Yeah. *Except for that*, what's that got to do with anything?

COAB.

'Don't like "Jim's" reference to bringing a gun, not a cam corder.

Hmmm. Ya begin to wonder, with Warman posing as "Lucy" and Steacy as whoever, if this guy's for real...

Regular posters at SDA don't make comments like this.

Batb,

Similar thought crossed my mind.

I am sure our hostess will figure out if that is a regular poster who got too hot under the collar or an interloper. I agree, not the norm for the board.

by Kathryn: "That it's unrealistic to expect a quasi judicial tribunal to conduct the same sort of sting operations as law enforcement without providing the same protections that would be given to the accused if it was a criminal investigation?

I don't know why it would be unrealistic. Any suspect or defendant, no matter how despicable their character or crime, has the right that investigators, prosecutors and judges will follow the rules. If the defendant has truly committed a crime, there is no need to plant evidence or otherwise attempt to frame him."

There is Supreme Court case law that addresses this very point. The gist of it is that if you are prosecuting under criminal code, charter protections must be invoked in the collection and presentation of evidence, and that evidence gathered under "administrative" statutes must pass a "charter" test to be entered as evidence in a proceeding that is criminal proceeding.

I'm not sure that I'd be too hard on O'Malley, other than perhaps not being the best choice for this job.
Blogging is not a skill set journalists have shown any aptitude for. Live blogging would be completely beyond most of them. MacLean's would have been better served by hiring a seasoned court steno (if there are any left) for this job - some who is used to focusing on the words stated, not the potential headline.

I'm sure Craig Oliver and Don Newman submitted their copies of the hearings last night.

In looking at the rest of her blogs, I think Kady doesn't know what a grown-up blog is. Its not a cross between facebook comment postings and scribbling out loud the disconnected thoughts that bounce around her braincase. That's what teenagers do...

Jim at March 25, 2008 12:55 PM. Out planting comments today are we?

What's wrong with Macleans that someone didn't prepare O'Malley, e.g., by directing her to Ezra Levant's site?

Having read just a few of the transcripts of the preceding CHRC hearings there filled me in very well--on all kinds of things. E.g., Barbara Kulaszka, Lemire’s lawyer, seems to be a smart cookie, well prepared and professional. In contrast, the CHRC lawyers appeared to be as clueless and unprofessional as O'Malley.

I'm not sure that any live blog is better than none: those low expectations again. A pox on them.

Skip, she should at least know who Barbara Kulaszka is. It's *spectacular* that she doesn't. It would be -- literally -- impossible for anyone who has looked even for five minutes into the case she's blogging about to not know who Kulaszka is.

I mean, her own magazine is being hounded by these clowns, and she doesn't have the first clue about the background of the HRCs, or any of the issues? Come on. I think it's shameful, and a real embarrassment for Macleans.

Like ET said, no one expects in-depth analysis, but it's obvious she's not even aware of what's at stake, or why certain pieces of evidence are important or not.

Will we hear from Connie Fournier or Mark Steyn?

An overview of today's proceedings with some context?

Just wondering.

EBD, of course it is [shameful], but that's only be cause we hang on to an expectation of professionalism amongst these people. Unrealistic, apparently, but then that's been obvious for a while... Then again, look who they've got for mentors in this country...

I'm sorry, O'Malley doesn't have a clue. She's clueless. Look, I support Ken Whyte and what he's trying to do with MacLeans, but if O'Malley is the best they can do on a matter such as this, which they are intimately acquainted with, it wears very poorly on MacLeans. Perhaps there's a double-play plan here, O'Malley may be a feint, but at least so far, I can't see it.

I went over to Maclean's Web site this morning to see if I could ask what the heck they were thinking when they assigned MS. O'Malley to live blog this hearing.

There seemed no easy way to contact them; one had to register to comment on various "hot topics," though I didn't see this particular hot topic on the menu--though I could easily have missed it.

So, Maclean's, if any of you are reading SDA today: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU GOT THE UNINFORMED, FACT-CHALLENGED KADY O'MALLEY TO LIVE BLOG THE HRC TRIBUNAL HEARING TODAY?

I totally concur with Vitruvius' comment that Maclean's' giving Ms. O'Malley this assignment "wears very poorly on MacLeans."

Vitruvius sir, you spoke my mind. I'm going to subscribe to MacLean's when this is the best they can do for the most important hearing of the decade? She didn't think there might be something of import in all that stuff "Barbara K" was reading into the record?

Looking for dramatic moments in a hearing which is boring by design, that's not reporting. The very fact that there even is a hearing she can be at is something that seems to have gone over her head. That didn't just happen, that was made to happen.

Lancaster bomber flies over her head, four Merlins turning, she doesn't look up? Come ON.

Look at this sentence, the last one O'Malley wrote before taking off for an hour in the middle of "live" blogging a tribunal hearing (which she odiously keeps referring to as a "court", while calling the head pooh-bah a judge, sometimes, and a chair other times):

"I can't help but think this is a risky strategy, although since there are no cameras here, and very few reporters, I guess it's more playing to the crowd than a legal tactic."

Oy vey. It would be playing to the crowd if there were cameras and reporters ~ she thinks it's all about her! And as for legal tactics, cripes. I'll have to send her one of my duplicate Perry Mason copies with training wheels glued on to the covers.

I can be reasonably argued that the central issue in these matters is not free speech, because there some limits, but due process, because the tribunals don't have the due process that real courts of law do. And she mixes up those two terms. Unbelieveable. Or as Rex Murphy would say, Onbelievable.

I think some people are expecting a little too much from "liveblogging".

If you expect a full in-depth analysis of all the implications of testimony, wait for the reporters to file their stories, and the pundits to appear on the tube.

Somebody mentioned getting a court reporter to report everything said. Most people out there who care about every word that is said can wait until a transcript is available.

I think liveblogging should give a general blow by blow of the MAIN points going on.

Probably more important is reporting on the "mood in the room". Sure some of you are annoyed that Kady is blogging that everyone is bored, but guess what? If Steyn and LeMire are there half asleep while lawyers read legalese for 45 minutes, should she repeat the legalese word for word to us? If the main players can't stay awake, it's probably not the most important stuff. This is the stuff that you won't see in a newspaper article, and can't figure out by reading a transcript.

I'm willing to cut Kady some slack. Sure, it looks like she could have done a better job of prepping for this, and she seems to have an obsession with date squares; but after a bit of a rocky start (probably made worse by the fact that it was boring) she seems to have got on track and is doing a passable job.

Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. I'll check out the other liveblogs done later on tonight and see how this one compared to everyone elses. My guess is that each writer will have their own strengths and weaknesses.

For Jim @1255.

Someone with so fine a name ought to be smart enough to know that Ottawa is out west, not east.

Vitruvius...

"I can't help but think this is a risky strategy, although since there are no cameras here, and very few reporters, I guess it's more playing to the crowd than a legal tactic."

Oy vey. It would be playing to the crowd if there were cameras and reporters ~ she thinks it's all about her!

I would disagree with you...myself and a coworker have "played to the crowd" when the crowd consisted of one person who we were negotiating with. The goal of any hearing is to convince an adjudicator that your side of the "case" is correct. By definition you are playing to a crowd.

No, sorry mecheng, I disagree. The point is that this a critically important hearing, on a matter of which MacLeans is intimately aware, and to cover it live, MacLeans sent a ditz.

Mecheng - the "mood in the room" is meaningless. What counts, and the only thing that counts, is the testimony, and what flows from it. Most hearings are boring. Live-blogging a hearing should be about the content, not the "feelings". Lord knows when a transcript will be available, if ever. Live-blogging a hearing should be about a LOT more than colour commentary as in a golf tournament.
If she wants to comment of what people are doing, she might ignore the person next to her that keeps falling asleep (and wishing it were her) and watch very carfully, the moods and expressions of the participants, not the audience. She's way in over her depth.

Contact sources for MacLeans:

http://www.macleans.ca/contactus/index.jsp

I've seen Kady O'Malley often enough on Don Newman to be indisposed to give her much slack, mecheng.

The point is not her live blogging technique--but, heck, I could have done a better job--it's that she didn't seem to know what she was doing.

She seems to have no idea what a HRC Tribunal hearing IS, she seems to have no idea about its import, about the issues, about the main players, about the difference between a Human Rights Tribunal Hearing and a court of law, etc., etc.

All of these things are CENTRAl to the importance of this hearing to the issue of free speech in Canada. As The Phantom points out, she seems not to have a clue that this hearing very nearly wasn't open to the public, including hers truly and her magazine.

It's like she just tumbled out of bed this morning, got a call from her boss on her cell phone asking her, please, if she happened to be anywhere near this hearing, could she just drop by and, like, you know, scribble a few observations on her laptop? 'Nothing too serious, no need to do any background, just make some pithy comments--you know, Kady? Just do your usual, flippant, oh-my-gosh, schtick and you'll be so CUTE.

This is embarrassing, for Kady O'Malley and for Maclean's. There were a lot of very knowledgable people waiting to hear what was going to happen at this hearing, and we found out that it seemed very long and that someone in the room fell asleep...zzzz

Exactly, BATB, this a matter that runs from that tribual room, back through Runnymede, all the way to ancient Athens, and MacLeans send a ditzy cutie-pie to stand in for their live coverage.

Why couldn't Mr. Coyne himself have done the job. I may not always agree with him, heck, I don't even always agree with myself, but at least he is intelligent and well versed on the issues.

Note to O'Malley: This isn't a fashion show.

Lori:

And in fairness, having tried to explain this thing to reasonably intelligent family members and friends, I have mostly encountered a vague sense of "why are you getting so worked up" from them. Maybe it's my lack of ability to express myself, or the brainwashing so deep in the system, or the fact that our clarity comes from months and years of grappling with these things, not overnight...

I suspect the issue is not your inability to represent your position. You argue your points well and you strike me as a calm person - one that others would most likely want to hear out.

I think that the main issue is the very name Humman Rights Commissions/Tribunals. Most people in Canada have a trusting nature when it comes to government. Whether they should or not is another matter, but my observation is that most trust government. When you or someone else begins to suggest that the Human Rights organizations in Canada are, at least sometimes, actually suppressing human rights, a lot of people simply hear "conspiracy theory" in their mind and tune you out. They may be open to the idea of government incompetence showing itself in the lack of protection of human rights for legitimate grievances, but the suggestion that the government commissions are themselves (sometimes) subversive to traditional Western freedoms is simply to much for some people to consider. It is so beyond the pale for some that they will not even hear out the messenger.

I will try to put this as blunt as I can. This case may open up a form of Pandora's box, the ultimate result of which could very well be a legal decision that finds the likes of HRC/HRT to be more legally problematic than Fromm, Lemire, Christie, etc. Most Canadians are not ready for this. Keep at it. Slow, maybe, but certainly steady. Patience and steadfastness.

Mr. Steyn is back, and promises his analysis later today. For now, he writes:

"According to the signs plastered all over the courtroom, this case is "Warman vs Lemire" - ie, it was Richard Warman who brought the suit against Marc Lemire, no doubt thinking it would be another easy-peasy tax-free 35-grand Christmas bonus for him. Instead, Mr Lemire fought back, since when Mr Warman has been conspicuous by his absence. Today was the 20th successive day in court when the supposed complainant was a no-show. Evidently, Warman's moved on: places to go, people to sue.

"This is why the system is fundamentally unfair. As David Warren says, the process is the punishment. Richard Warman is off sunning himself at Malibu or checking out the latest collections in Paris or seeing his tailor in Hong Kong, while Marc Lemire expends vast amounts of his own time and money. I emerged from the CHRT with total contempt for a system so openly gamed."

O'Malley is pathetic! Has she never been to a trial, a hearing, a discovery? Doesn't she know the first thing about due process, rules of evidence, court procedure, basics of free speech? I wouldn't send her to cover the kindergarten pagent.

What's with Warman's not showing up?

Mark Steyn says this "was the 20th successive day in court when the supposed complainant was a no-show."

He's allowed, with impunity, to do this while Lemire has to show up and pay out of his own pocket?

Yellow Canada. That's the colour of a banana, n'est-ce pas?

Re Kulaszka: "Thanks to a very kind reader, I can now write out her full last name -- Kaluska -- without fear of misspellings."

Did that kind reader by any chance provide a serial number as well?

/:>o-

How ever did Kady land her job at Macleans?

Probably the same as the character portrayed by Nicole Kidman in 'To Die For' ?

I don't disagree that she does not look like she was properly prepared for this. And that is not acceptable. That said, Kady is not trying to present herself as an all knowing master of the subject. There are things I would like to know that she hasn't covered. Oh well. And remember, Macleans has more reporters there than Kady, so we will be seeing more out of them, I am sure.

I felt the same way that you did this morning...Macleans sent a ditz. I had read her live blog of one of the budgets, and shook my head when I saw she was doing this. Then I sat down and had a coffee and really thought about what the purpose of live blogging is. I don't think there is any purpose in it simply being a "live" version of Hansard, a word for word transcript of everything said. Hopefully that is available at some point in the future.

Live coverage of the event would consist of a camera on the person being questioned. That can be useful, but that only tells you half of the story. Besides, cameras weren't allowed.

It is the other reporters/pundits job to analyze what was said, twist it around, and regurgitate it to the public in a manner that suits their bias and agenda.

So what is the purpose of liveblogging? No point if it just regurgitates everything else out there.

Recently, I helped senior management for my company prepare a presentation to senior regulators. I attended the presentation, nominally to run the projector, but in reality, it was my job to take notes on the regulators reactions to the presentation, to gauge the "mood in the room". To keep notes on how each person reacted, watch facial expressions, etc. This is what I think liveblogging should do. Tell the story that nobody else is telling.

A few more points on the value of what Kady is doing.

1) This is completely unfiltered, and not subject to an editor tweaking it. Liveblogging should be an off-the-cuff, first impressions, haven't had time to fully digest it point of view.

2) She is not pretending to be unbiased. She is clearly stating opinion, and because of that, MUCH can be forgiven.

3) Liveblogs are only of interest to people who are already going to read every single word published on a topic. You need to do something different to add value. Most of the liveblogs I've seen (admittedly not many of them) have been to entertain, while providing info you can't get anywhere else. So expect some bad attempts at humor.

4) Given that Kady didn't seem totally up to speed on the subject, it still is interesting as a gauge of how the typical person on the street might react to this information. Kady did seem disturbed by some of the things coming out.

5) I'd rather have seen it done by Ezra. Witty and knowledgeable.

I'm not going to smack down Kady too much, as my only recollection of previous work she has done was liveblogging the budget, and that's not enough to crucify her over. It tainted my opinions, and she did get off to a bad start, but really, I don't think I'd have done any better, and I'd probably have done much worse.

Final word...liveblogging is a new form of getting news. And until I see someone do a REALLY GOOD job of it, I won't criticize (too much) anyone for doing a substandard job. And I haven't seen anyone do a really good job yet.

Sorry everyone. I am hot under the collar on this one and apologize to those of you that have common sense and live out east. You two know who you are.

PS - I couldn't care less what a turd like Kinsella makes of my comments. Out west we tend to employ creeps like that at Tim Horton's or McDonald's rather than electing them to political office.

batb...I have no knowledge of O'Malley on Newman...I blocked the CBC from my cable box a long time ago!

Perhaps I am cutting her too much slack.

The Doug Christie questioning Steacy would be the same Doug Christie who defended Doug Collins a decade ago in B.C.

That would be the same Doug Christie who is banned from speaking in the public area in the Parliament Buildings, simply because of whom he chooses to defend.

Kady O'mally needs to wake up and take note of a fight for free expression in this country.

This fight has been on going since the time she was still in pampers, and yet one should not be surprised she ( a Canadian journalist) doesn't comprehend the implications of the state and HRC's odious involvement in Canadian thought crimes prosecution.

I disagree, mecheng. You say, "She is not pretending to be unbiased. She is clearly stating opinion, and because of that, much can be forgiven". I think the opposite is true. If she was being unbiased, then it would have been ok to just do the fashion show coverage. That she is expressing opinions on the subject matter carries the heavier burden of having some sense of what you're talking about. O'Malley doesn't.

I had the opposite experience from you, mecheng. I've never heard of O'Malley before. I've been following this all day. Until 15:03 EDT, I said nothing, not wanting to have to judge O'Malley unless my hand was forced. As my grandma always said, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all. That's why the first two words I posted in this discussion were, "I'm sorry". After that, the record stands above. I intervened only when I came to question what MacLeans, Whyte, Coyne, et al are up to.

Perhaps Steyn's analysis later today will shed light on the matter.

Much better live blog of hearing than O'Malley at
http://www.canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/

mecheng: "I don't think there is any purpose in it [live blogging] simply being a 'live' version of Hansard..."

I totally agree. It should be an assessment, observations, comments on what is transpiring at the HRC Tribunal hearing.

What Ms. O'Malley mangaged to do, only, was to reveal her own discomfort with the proceedings because she was not informed about who was involved, what the parties were defending or questioning, and what the issues she was supposed to be live blogging about were.

She was to be some kind of witness to the events in front of her, a very important role for someone in the media to perform: What happened? Why did it happen? Who's involved? What's to be lost? What's to be gained? Why is this important? What are the ramifications of this hearing? What's next?

Sadly, I didn't get a sense of the historical importance of this event from what Ms. O'Malley reported. 'No idea of why it was important or what was at stake for each of the parties involved or what's next.

What was Maclean's thinking?

I have not been enlightened by their reporter's live blog and am eagerly awaiting what Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have to say. (On the other hand, is it in their best interests to say very much, seeing as they're next....?)

So, who you gonna call?

That's one thing that's been going through the back of my mind, batb: is it in their best interests to say very much? We know there are lawyers involved under the hood. That's why one of the first things I wondered above is whether there's some deeper play going on here. I still do. Perhaps we'll find out at some point.

Vitruvius, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, I've just had a fundamental shift in my perception of liveblogging today. I have a different viewpoint than I did this morning.

If this is all we get out of Macleans, I'd be stunned. I am eagerly awaiting what Steyn has to say on the matter.

Are there any other Canadian news organizations out there that are doing liveblogging? I'd be interested in seeing how they approach it. Macleans seems to be approaching it from an "entertainment for interested readers" point of view.

That could be the exact wrong approach, considering readers of any particular liveblog will tend to be the observers who care the most about the topic, including partisans who will attack any little error.

Like I said, I'd love to see a liveblog by Ezra.

Jim wrote: Sorry everyone. I am hot under the collar on this one and apologize to those of you that have common sense and live out east. You two know who you are.

PS - I couldn't care less what a turd like Kinsella makes of my comments. Out west we tend to employ creeps like that at Tim Horton's or McDonald's rather than electing them to political office.

Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2008 6:54 PM

Jim I'm appalled at you, Shirly you must of heard of Kinsellas vast experience cleaning washrooms in search of "Nazis". A man with that kind of job experience belongs in an Airport cleaning washrooms, please don't insult Tim Horton workers they serve "Mothers's milk" to many a hardworking stiff daily whilst Kinsella hunts down an imaginary enemy in washrooms.

What's this topic about again? Oh yea the blogger for Macleans, sorry but she did an awful job and I'd say her mockery of those involved was uncalled for. I want to hear what is going on not tripe about her incessant need for "Date Squares". If she's the best they could dispatch perhaps Elmo's boys should of been asked to report. Then again what ever coverage the HRC gets is better than none, she might of taken the time to do her homework on the issue at hand. Sloppy and bad reporting for sureeeeeeeee.

I don't know if this qualifies as criticism of Kady or not, but my summation of what is written today is that she did not add anything substantial to the discussion.

One question.... is that it? Or does the hearing continue tomorrow? What's next?

Fair enough, mecheng, and for the record, I always value your comments. I'm fully aware that I've gone out on a limb here, and if there is a deeper play, then I was wrong (for some value of wrong). Decent rhetoric requires a certain degree of commitment or it turns to mush.

And to a degree it must be noted that I just don't think that the matter at hand here is about or should have anything to do with entertainment. These are the most serious matters of state we are discussing, not some stupid Jon Stewart monologue.

Yet it remains the case that I have nothing against Ms. O'Malley, there may be many useful things she can do well, it is only in my judgement her assignment to this case that I find to be an unacceptable impedence mismatch.

A pilot, whether he flies a single engine aircraft or a multi-engine jet, never takes off without a complete pre-flight check.
Kady did not do her homework.
She went down in flames.

In other news, I've tracked down Warman!

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-03-25-0018/

So as best I can tell the only reason Freedominion ended up in the CHRT gunsights is becasue they had the temerity to let someone post that they knew Jadwarr was governement agent posting on freedomsite.

That abuse of power is troubling enough because it peaks of imtimidation and political targetting.

Do I have this right?

Brent Weston and Ed, my sentiments exactly.

(Now why did I buy that Macleans subscription again?)

To be fair, Lookout, tarring and feathering an entire operation because of a single event may be to use too broad a brush. Someone may just have made a bad mistake on the assignment desk, as somebody alluded to above. Perhaps you bought the Macleans' subscription for broader reasons, and this case is but a counter example, an accumulation of which is required in order to pass a general-purpose judgement.

(PS: I note that I miscapitalized Macleans throughout above. Sorry.)

I hear you, Vitruvius: my comment was actually partly tongue in cheek.

However, I finally bought the subscription--my husband and I hummed and hawed--because of what we believed was Macleans's pricipled stand on the CHRC case. With Ken Whyte, Andrew Coyne, and Mark Steyn on board, we were beginning to trust this agent of the MSM.

Then this . . . I'm more than disappointed.

I was there today. I have an interest in the case, but I was really there to meet Mark Steyn.

The man is just as funny in person as his writing. I arrived at 11 am and left at the end of the 11:42 break, after a chit-chat with Mr. Steyn and a few others, including Deborah Gyapong.

I believe this might have been a record crowd (there were about 30 spectators), because the security guard asked me what was going on while he was checking me for cameras and whatnot.

I did not know Kady O'Malley was doing a live blog, so I did not look around for her.

While I was there Dean Steacy was on the stand. He was trying to avoid saying anything substantial, there was a lot of "I don't recall" comments regarding details and dates. Mark Steyn, who covered Conrad Black's trial, noted that if the courtroom was in America, an American judge would not be pleased that the witness was so ill-prepared, considering how much time there was for preparation.

Regardless, it was obvious that Steacy was not being honest and the judge even helped him fill out the details of what actually transpired during his investigation, reading to Steacy things that Steacy had written in his correspondence with Lemire.

Is this a barrel of a gun issue? I think it's pretty damn close. Just what will it take?

I don't think the commenters should be so hard on O'Malley. This was not like live-blogging a convention, a sports event or a show. It was a court. The events moved at a snail's pace, and there was not a lot of fireworks. It was also not easy to piece together the responses from Steacy or others into something coherent. This was not an episode of Law and Order.

At the risk of nudging the topic of this thread away from Ms. O'Malley to this day's proceedings, SDAers may want to look at Marc Lemire's comments for the day. Whatever else Mr Lemire may or may not be, he is a bit of a techy. As such, he is much more interested in details and his posts reflect that.

Understood, SF, and thanks for your report. Yet it remains that case that like a convention, a sports event, or a show, I would expect that one who is assigned in a professional capacity to cover a tribunal proceeding would have some clue about what the whole shebang is all about.

This is an important distinction. Ms. O'Malley was not there as joe-citizen blogger, who gets to talk about whatever he wants, she was there as a representative of Macleans, which is, I believe, a professional journalistic operation, and she was not prepared to be or cabable of being professional about it (not that she might not be professional on other matters).

That is the failure of this assignment.

Aha! Thanks for the link, Brent, enough of the coverage that never was.

Vitruvius:

You are welcome. You know, it is rather ironic that of the two live blog streams of which I am aware, the more objective and reasoned of the two is the one by the White Nationalist defendant in the overall case and the least objective is the one by the so-called 3rd party observer.

Vitruvius:
You may be right, it may have been the mistake of the assignment desk. But this is a weekly newsmagazine, not an hourly newscast.
Where was the preparation? Someone screwed up. She didn't even know the names of some of the people involved. For heaven's sake their own magazine is fighting the HRC. You'd think they would assign someone who had some knowledge of the issue.
She expressed more concern about Christie's deportment than the she did about the issue at hand, free speech.

From Lemire:

"I understand what you've done is use the services of London Police Department to gain access to the encrypted hard drive of Mr. Scott Richardson's hard drive. You didn't have a search warrant for that."

At the simplest, this seems to me to be a violation of due process. Now, what specifically could this violation mean in this case?

More from Lemire:

The fur began to fly when Mr. Christie, rose on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, to ask whether Mr. Warman ever told her that he and others sometimes post on sites like Stormfront.

It is interesting that the CHRC continues to play the Section 37 angle. I had thought that one had already been dealt with. This is interesting. I am looking forward to the transcript itself. I would like to know if the transcript presents Steacy as evasice as Lemire presents him.

I guess the "v" evaded me when I was trying to type "evasive".

It is indeed ironic, and the decryption without warrant item
jumped out to me too. They are not supposed to do that.

And one more jewel:

Under persistent questioning from Barbara Kulaszka, Dean Steacy admitted that, under the legislation, there is no exemption for investigators postiing "hate" on the Internet.

Hmmm. Let's try that slowly. under the legislation - that means something if Canada is still a nation under the rule of law. #2 there is no exemption for investigators. Now, does no exemption in legislation mean almost no exemption in the practice of an investigation. Or does it mean what it says. The statement applies to investigators. Is Mr. Steacy more than an investigator and governed by some "higher" purpo--, er, law, or, have he and others gone beyond the limits of the legislation.

Kady O'Malley is not cut out for this job.

She spends more time complaining about boredom than actually reporting on interesting details. That's the worst live-blogging I've ever read ... she's in way over her head.

Vitruvius, et.al.

NP article here that clearly tracks Lemire's observations compared to O'Malley's. Mr. Brean also states that he only know of the 2 live streams so I guess that is it for me tonight. I am sure there will be more tomorrow.....

More evasion:

There were moments of drama, such as when Mr. Steacy bluntly and repeatedly refused to answer a question (he was asked for the identity of an anonymous complainant, who never filed a formal complaint), to the evident shock of Athanasios Hadjis, the one-man tribunal hearing the case.

Just one more post for me tonight, Kate. I had posted a response to comments made by lori sometime between 6:00 and 6:15. The spam filter caught it. I do not know why, but.....

Thanks for looking into it.

Thanks, Kate.

Reaching way back into the past...

JohnnyRingo @ 2:30 "Kinda odd that an issue that affects THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR LIVES AND FREEDOM!!11!! is unfolding in Ottawa right now, and yet [Kate is] back home at home on the farm...
Even your five foot friend is nowhere to be found ... You two broke or something?"

I wasn't there either, and I could have walked there. I had my another distasteful "freedom of expression" case to deal with, and bills to pay. What's your excuse?

The sin of democracy: somebody else will do it.

The revolution will be live blogged, the live blogger
will be heckled, the hecklers will be queried, the queries
will be countered, and all will be considered.

Viva la revolution!!!

I too thought Kady's blog was less than rivetting, not to say professional. She just didn't take it seriously nor was interested in it; not to say she really had a clue whqat was going on.

ET @1158 AM I agree 100% with your post. I scanned the "liveblogging" fronm Omalley surepticiously at work but couldn't respond 'til now, midnight.

Brent: certainly what you identify is a factor in the difficulty of communicating this issue to those who are not engaged in it daily - the conditioning we have to believe that anything labeled "human rights" is "a good thing".

But it's more complex. First, I find that people can't make a leap between how denying Lemire his freedom of speech and abusing the process that he is caught up in, actually threatens our society more than it threatens him. They have no knowledge of history, no knowledge of what is going on Europe.... It's like those 25% of the British who thought that Winston Churchill was a myth.

Dealing with people 40 and under, a major factor is just sheer lazy ignorance. Getting through to the spoiled brat Xbox generation that would rather spend an evening watching American Idol than reading a book, learning the lessons of history, or engaging in online debate is like bashing your head against a wall.

Dealing with people 40 and over, a factor seems to be fatigue. They know things are going wrong. They know that the country has changed for the worse in the last 30 years, but many don't see it as the fault of their generation, and many more are just resigned to whatever may come our way.

The main thing that drives me is my kids. I am neither militant nor aggressive in nature. I'm actually quite the pacifist. But I want my children to grow up in a better country than the one I see us headed towards. And human history is very clear on what happens to people who don't resist encroaching evil at its early stages... ultimately a much heavier price is demanded.

There is a very good article about what is actually going on at this hearing, at whatreallyhappened.com, (instead of lame comments about the dipwad that McLeans sent to cover it.)