At Macleans – coverage of Warman v. Lemire.
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. Well, that was dramatic, at least.
‘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.