The Accused stands accused of time travel as the national embarrassment known as the BC Human Rights Tribunal picks up speed – the natural consequence of going downhill;
Uh-oh. The chair seems pissed. If you weren’t happy with their disclosure, did you bring an application for further and better disclosure? Well no. {Paraphrasing here.] If they’d given us a list, we’d have looked at whether they were clear enough. But they just said to us, we’re going to enter some documents that you have. As for UN reports, “I’m convinced they’ve churned out five or six in the last half hour. Probably more to come later today.”
Joseph cleverly rebuts: those may be the rules of evidence in a real court, but we’re not in a real court! He’s got a point there… (Well, he didn’t say “real court.” I beleve he said “at the appellate level.”
10:28 AM As for the irrelevance of reports on Islamophobia “across the pond,” well, “Islamophobia does not stop at the waters.” It’s a worldwide phenomenon. Reports were meant to illustrate the impact of Islamophobia, regardless of its precise location. “My friend wants you to judge the evidence before you receive it.” We’re breaking for probably half an hour or so while the panel considers the question.
Here’s my best effort at a direct quote from McConchie, after telling the tribunal how real courts work: that’s “how at least in my experience and my understanding of the law… I accept this tribunal is not bound by the same rules as a regular court, but there are boundaries, there’s a minimal requirement to prove the authority of the document that’s submitted to the tribunal that is represented to be some sort of academic study, and that would ordinarily be done through an expert witness, and not a lay witness who happens to have seen it.”
That’s how a polite man tells a tribunal they don’t know what the hell they’re doing.
Needless to say, not one of the Troika is paying much attention to him, and panellist Tonie Beharrell has her eyes closed for much of it.
(More here).
I suggest folks get busy forwarding both reports to the offices of every MP and MLA in the nation, along with Ezra’s three word solution.
Fire. Them. All.
Update Tarek Fatah writes in Coyne’s comments;
Does anyone remember Sheikh Younus Kathrada, the Imam who preached that Jews were “brothers of monkeys and swine”?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/21/cleric-rcmp050721.html
Well, what do you know. The good old “monkeys and swine” imam is part of this convoluted Islamist alliance fighting Mackeans.
How, you ask? Relax. Since none of the esteemed reporters are digging deep enough, let me help them out from Toronto.
The National Post today suggests that Naiyer Habib, unlike Khurrum Awan, gives the trial a “local flavour.”
Most B.C. Muslims would beg to differ…
Naiyer Habib is from Saskatchewan and only moved to Vancouver recently. The Regional Director of the CIC in BC is Luay Kawasme. Where is he? Don’t know.
I am told Naiyer Habib is the father of Adnan Habib. Adnan Habib is a Vancouver lawyer, and the legal counsel for the BC Muslim Association.
Earlier this year the BC Muslim Association hired a new Imam. Guess who? None other than the discraced hate-monger Sheikh Younus Kathrada!
Thee Imam who preached that Jews were “brothers of monkeys and swine” is now lecturing at Masjid al-Iman in Victoria run by an organsiation whose legal counsel is the son of Naiyer Habib!
Convoluted assoications? yes. Guilt by association? Probabaly, but it is not me who is saying all Muslims are one organic body that weeps whenever the boy-band is insulted.
For the first time in my adult life, I’m ashamed of my country.
We are at war with the Islamists yet our military, government& judiciary are Blind to it, except the Military actually doing the physical fight. Where is our military intelligence or even civilian in this affair? Good night Canada it s been fun while the games lasted. It will not be armies that destroy this Country but imbeciles with to much money & ideological pet projects using tax payers money. I am beginning to believe the poster who said in OJIBAWAY the word ORIGINALY for Canada, Kanata means “Kick me”. If these goons win where cooked like last years turkey. This will be a real dictatorship. I can already see the chill online. Less posters. Bloggers including report abuse links to cover there butts (WHO CAN BLAME THEM). Welcome to the beginning of the end of your lives as free Women & Men if these parasites of these disruptive neo-Marxist inqisitions get there way.
It is scarce wonder that Liberals and their client groups require Tribunals to interpret speech.
Words don’t seem to have quite the same meaning for Liberals they do for everyone else.
Heck,what’s a billion or seven between friends?
“Mr. Dion is reported to be considering a tax that would bring in about $17-billion a year, which would be offset by $10-billion to $13-billion in tax cuts. The Conservatives should be able to dine out on that – a “revenue neutral” tax that collects more than it cuts – for a long time”
No Wage and Price Controls
No 18 cent Gas Tax
No GST
No Free Trade
Universal Childcare
Revenue Neutral
Oh I get it. Liberals always mean the opposite of what they say. Gee, isn’t that eerily similar to lying? About the big things? Repeatedly?
Somebody oughta do something.
The great outcome of this whole thing is that really bright light is a great antidote to germs & bacteria etc.
A brilliant journalistic light should work equally on exposing and eliminating the blight these HRC’s are on our democracy.
Say no to Star Courts, say no to Fascist Tribunals.
“panellist Tonie Beharrell has her eyes closed for much of it.”
Tonie’s undoubtedly seeking divine guidance.
I’ve been ashamed of my country for a while now. It’s amazing how soon you get over it.
There wasn’t much left of the “real” country anyhow, not since around 1967.
Referring to identifiable groups as animals simply because they’re an identifiable group is hateful, dehumanizing and likely to expose the identifiable groups’ members to hatred, contempt, discrimination and violence.
So when does Kathrada’s hate crime trial begin?
Hmmmmm? Hello, Warman? Kinsella?
This is not about hatred, but rather about some Muslims demanding that others honour them. Since when do religious people expect honour in a secular culture. I’m a devoted Christian, but I don’t expect honour or even respect. If people respect and honour my religion it will be because Chrisians do good deeds and such. If some want to slag Christianity and say it is a bad thing, go ahead.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021210.php
Consider what a UK bishop said recently about Islam taking over in the UK. “Instead of the Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety and the importance of ‘saving face’.”
This Tribunal is not about hatred, since there is little evidence that Muslim experience concrete trouble from those who disrespect them. Jews can and often, as in Europe, from Muslims. Consider the unreasonable requests by the Muslim students of Macleans. The requests were not about equity, but rather about returning face to the students. Macleans has no obligation to protect someone or a groups honor, nor should anyone else in Canada.
Mark Styen and MacLeans have not shown hatred, but their crime is that they have just not honored Muslims. I suspect this “you hate us because you don’t honor us” has to do with the entrenched supremicist theology in the Koran and Hadith (read it folks … scary theology). Islam generally teaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, and therefore we inferiors should not be disrespecting a superior people. Salafism has been on the rise for the last 40 years folks and its deeply supremacist and violent in its theology.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi for more info on Salafism … also called Wahhabism.
Read http://www.jihadwatch.org for a reasoned critique of the current state of Islamic theology. If you don’t believe these critics, just read what the Imams and Mullahs are teaching on the online Muslims newspapers.
As much as I am enjoying the sheer stupidity of the Elmasry gang and the BC HRT, it is imperative that Maclean’s loses this thing and loses big in the most kangaroo-ish way possible so it can all go into a real court.
Hey Conservative Party of Canada, I’m really looking forward to your next phone call asking for my support!
This may help expedite the Muslim day as defendants in hate court.
How will they defend against the printed hate, violence and death preached and performed by Mohammad in their texts?
How will they defend against their own terrorists using the Quran and Mohammad’s words to incite horrific violence and holocausts, proven throughout the centuries?
How will they get around their doctrinal definition of the world split into dar al Islam and dar al Harb? Their definition of Kaffir? Their definition of Dhimmi? Their racist, bigoted and dehumanizing statements concerning the Jews, Christians, Women and all non-Muslims?
Their day is coming. And with any luck their cult will be unveiled and legally banned for what it is – a treasonous, murderous, hate and conquest cult. Their own texts and prophet are the evidence and their undoing.
Ezra Levant’s blog outlines much of what is going on. It is deeply, deeply, shameful for Canada and Canadians.
A case of freedom of speech and critical analysis is being brought, not to a court, but to a panel of legally illiterate and historically ignorant appointees. The issue is being redefined to assert that ANY critical analysis of Islam and of Muslim interpretations and behaviour claimed as ‘Islamic’ …is ‘phobic’.
What does a phobia mean? It means an irrational fear. These Islamic complainants are asserting that any criticism of Islam or Muslims is a ‘phobic’ action. Essentially, they are saying that it is impossible to criticize Islam or Muslim behaviour.
The tribunal triad don’t even bother, or know enough, to ask for the definition of ‘Islamophobia’. And reading Ezra’s blog, to see the ‘evidence’ that they are bringing in, as part of their ‘proof’ that Steyn/Macleans caused ‘Islamophobia’ – is astonishing. They are bringing in blogs; they are bringing in blogs from Europe, from the US, they are bringing in articles etc – even written before Macleans.
How they can even claim linear causality, and thus, deny the independence of thought by people around the world – it’s astonishing.
And the fact that all of this is allowed to be heard. In Canada. I’m not making this up.
Shameful.
HANDY REFERENCES TO THE KORAN
* verses which preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public tranquility (i.e., 2:193; 8:39; 2:216; 9:41; 9:123; 66:9; 9:73; 8:65; 8:66; 47:4—15; 8:12; 69:30—33; 8:15—18; 25:52; 9:39; 9:111; 3: 169—171; 4:100; 48:29; 49:15; 2:154; 3:157—158; 8:59—60; 9:2—3; 9:29; 8:67; 4:84; 29:6; 29:69; 61:9—13; 9:36; 9:5; 9:14; 9:20—22; 4:95—96; 8:72—74; 3:142)
* verses which promote, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities (i.e., 4:101; 60:4; 58:23; 9:7; 8:13—14; 8:55; 25:55; 5:72; 9:23; 9:28; 3:28; 3:118; 4:144; 5:14; 5:64; 5:18; 5:51)
* verses which insult other religions as well as the religious beliefs of other communities (i.e., 5:17; 4:157; 5:116—118; 98:6; 68:8—13; 38:55—57; 22:19—21; 22:56—57; 5:36; 15:2; 72:14—15;41:33; 4:125; 25:27—29; 26:96—99; 3:85; 8:38; 31:13; 29:41—42; 37:22—25; 37:26—32; 25:17—19; 7:173; 21:66—67; 21:98—100; 16:20—21; 6:22—23; 6:40—41; 6:148; 2;221; 24:3)
Nicholson and the CPC are not touching but instead just watching this. Kudos to a rare dignified Liberal politician in Keith Martin. More MP’s other than from the CPC need to join the fray so that they open the road for Harper and Co. to fix this problem once and for all. I’m surprized the Bloc are not all over this as this would be a headline getter in Quebec.
It is not hard to figure out what I’m saying here is that if the CPC pounces on this too hard and too soon, the Liberal (Although it would be that much harder with K.Martin as their ‘defector’ of sorts) would push yet again their MSM partners to spin it as Conservatives are racists and anti immigrant not to mention again’st human rights.
This will be fixed at the Federal level first and will then follow provincially.
“so it can all go into a real court”
Given that Section 1 of the Charter weasels on about “reasonable limits” and the Supremes already ruled that stomping on free speech was reasonable (and it would never, ever, be abused, no really, we promise), a real court doesn’t seem a better idea.
The legislators need to repeal the applicable sections and cancel every conviction.
Geez, this BC HRC commission is the same stuff I used to read about Russian courts fifty years ago.
And Canadians should feel uncomfortable ever having the Supremes (as they are currently constituted ) rule on the Maclean’s / Steyn current “hate” charade.
Hey Mr. Harper, Ezra is right – Fire them (HRC’s) all!
Anyone see a similarity with the current BC HRC kangaroo court ?
Star Trek “Q’s” court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3r3r65xzIU
That’s the second time I have seen reference to making up the ‘rules’ as they go along.
Calvin-court.
HRCs proof of Islamophobia reminds me of Kyotoists proof of AGW.. They both feel justified in using any event anywhere while ignoring any contrary evidence.
This is why it is iportant to have real lawyers go through this process. Nobody is going to believe it until they see it and experience it.
Alternatively, when a legal team, such as the one Rogers has, docuent the process, the flaws, their experience before a real court and tangentally to their peers at conferences and gatherings then this thing spins out of control.
Why do you think Mr Kinsella didnt want this to happen. Because he knew that incremental tinkering will not be possible after this, only wholesale reform which means the whole enterprise gets shut down first while the legislation is reconsidered.
The only hope for the delay of this is for the BCHRT to find soe large scale vindication for McLeans…that will buy the time. But I dont think they’ll do that.
McLeans will be found guilty, a remedy ordered and McLeans will appeal.
ElMasery will use the subsequent overturn by the Supree Court as proof that there is no real justice in Canada…will pressure for an Islamic Community approved appointment to the SC and will agitate within the Islamic community about lack of fairness and the need for societal seperation within this country.
“Dancing in the ruins of the Western World,
Blindfolds on and we don’t care”
I’m forwarding the lot to my CPC member of parliament AND the wanky Liberal party MLA as well.
I suggest you lot do likewise. Educate, educate educate.
I’ve seen screaming bar fights where the participants showed better sense of what is and isn’t admissible evidence.
What we’re seeing in Vancouver is immoral, it’s corrupt, what can you say, except that we’re witnessing the deep systemic corruption that the Liberal Party of Canada has infected this country with.
The granddaddy of this crap — patient zero — is P.E.T.
As for the relevance (irrelevance is not a word) of foreign laws and information, the SCOTUS (or rather the liberal wing of it) has found ways to cite foreign laws as precedents for legislating from the bench with regards to moving their agenda forward.
As Ruth Bader Ginsberg has written:
“Foreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.”
I look forward to Obamessiah’s court on a 5-4 decision, legislating that the Canadian HRT has jurisdiction because Hate Speech is worldwide in its scope and that it is the Victim that should be allowed to set the venue of such a trial, regardless of their citizenship.
And then with a nod towards the UK’s libel laws, they’ll allow Osama Bin Laden to sue Michael Yon in London Court for libel and writings detrimental to Islam.
This Macleans commentator nails it:
comment by Bob Williams on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm:
“Can someone explain to me what the prosecutor(?) needs to prove in order for the panel to find Macleans guilty?”
Given the rules of rules of evidence do far, i imagine they’ll throw Steyn in a pond. If he drowns, he’ll be innocent.
Heh. Here is a video reenactment of the current “trial”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Talk about using a flame thrower to kill an ant, the damn fools want to enlarge the scope of their grievances to include the entire internet now.
Here’s where fascist Islam will always screw up, when they can’t apply physical terror to extract submission and they try to use their 7th century wits to cower the west they drop like rocks into buffoon status. Their methods are so primitive.
Not one of these smarmy complainants has ever had to worry about being physically harmed like their Jewish counterpart in every country where both reside. Nor have they ever had to listen to rabbis spewing hate 24/7 like the typical imam in every country where both reside. Islam ought to be turned on its head as the most consistent and rabid hate crime practitioners.
This tribunal is really a blessing when you think about it, it puts all of the key players right out there for all of us to see. We are one election away from having our very own tribunals here. Americans really need to not ignore this. Here’s hoping the tribunal issues a joint fatwa with the complainants against Mark Steyn and recommends that the internet be supervised. Even better ask for funding for re-education camps in Yellowknife.
Pass the popcorn.
And with a funky sound system, it appears there may not be transcripts either. As Jay Currie noted that makes it very hard for an appeal. They may just get away with it too.
Despite the seriousness of the BC HRC hearing on Canadian’s right to free speech and freedom of the press, the bizarre treatment of upstanding citizens and a well regarded news enterprise makes Monty Python skits appear sane by comparison.
I dare say if the complaintants swallowed packs of mentos and chugged diet coke while testifying before the HRC’s grand magistrate it would not matter. The point isn’t about the content, it’s about the desired result.
The hard job for BC’s HRC isn’t the foregone guilty verdict. The hard job will start the day after the verdict.
It’s incredible what is going on: hearsay accepted as ‘evidence’; personal opinions accepted as evidence; non-experts accepted as experts, lies accepted as evidence.
As Ezra Levant is posting, one of the ‘sockpuppets’ Awan, is changing his story with each question.
Awan begins by acknowledging that, although in the MSM press (Globe and Mail), he and his colleagues stated that they wanted a ‘mutually acceptable author’ to write their Maclean’s rebuttal….that he didn’t inform Macleans of such a ‘mutual acceptability’. It was the Islamic CIC choice alone.
At first, Awan said that he hadn’t informed Macleans of the CIC’s willingness to have a ‘mutually acceptable author’ because he felt that Macleans would ‘distort’ such an offer. I don’t know what this means.
Then, he went on later to claim that in his letter to the National Post, which also included the phrase ‘mutually acceptable’ that the NP writer Jonathan Kay might have added that phrase all by himself!
Now wait a minute. First, Awan claims that he didn’t tell Macleans about the proposed ‘mutually acceptable’ offer – he blames Maclean’s hypothetical response for that. That means – heh- that Awan accepts that at some time, in the public view, he and the CIC DID make such a claim.
Then, he doesn’t make any claim that the G&M article, which DID contain that phrase – was wrong! He and the CIC didn’t go after the G&M for writing that!
But now, he’s claiming that the phrase, appearing in a different paper, the NP, was ‘inserted’ by Jonathan Kay!
Phew.
And, rather than throwing the whole thing out, these kangaroo tribunal members sit and accept and listen to this garbage.
This is Canadian justice?
Leonard Cohen: I’ve seen the future, baby, and it’s murder.
This train’s been coming down the track for a long, long time. ‘Too many ostriches, aided and abetted by Trudopey-an welfare and government grants. Too many secular humanists willing to sell out our faith legacy, which was a pretty good gatekeeper when it came to keeping out death cults, of whatever stripe.
We’re moral and spiritual waifs and orphans, totally unprepared for the devestation on our doorsteps–no, in our living rooms.
Yes it is ET, and scary as hell I might add.
I’ve said it before, and looks like I’ll be saying it for a while to come: I have more personal freedom as a FOREIGN VISITOR in Arizona than I do as a citizen in Canada. Both as a theoretical exercise and in immediate, practical terms.
America haters shouting HOMELAND SECURITY!!! at the screen should go back to the top of the page and review Mark Steyn’s experiences of the day.
They. Can’t. Do. That. To. You. Not now, not in the USA. Maybe if Obama and his friends get elected, but maybe not even then.
Susan Sarandon needs to bite down on that little piece of reality, she still thinks Canada is someplace you can go to -escape- tyranny.
Awan is a classic. He underscores my opinion against any further Muslim immigration to the West. Here’s a person educated in Canada that simply isn’t, in spite of his exposure, assimilated to the values that distinguish us as democratic, liberal and secular compared to the tribal, undemocratic and intolerant 7th century Islam of his roots.
He’s a liar pure and simple. He comes from a religion and culture that rewards liars if they are advancing the cause or diminishing The Other. He will never leave Canada because of the goodies and the freedom he enjoys. He’s like the robotic cretins in the old USSR diplomatic corp that cursed the West while enjoying the freedom and stuff they could get their hands on when posted there.
It’s amusing that these little fascist narcissists are offended by the internet which played out in today’s hearing. Although his self-loathing lefty friends that hate all deviations from groupthink would step up to the plate to help him it’s never going to happen.
“Words don’t seem to have quite the same meaning for Liberals they do for everyone else.”
If the bulk of your constituency ranked English as a second language, that would be, and fundamentally is, true.
I am currently experiencing the surreal circumstance of having a senior program manager in Ottawa do her thing, for a large part of Southern Ontario, in which she is quite obviously ESL. Since this is in the arena of multi-million dollar legal-financial matters, it boggles the mind that she may, in fact, not be sufficiently literate in English to understand the language she is making decisions in. In order to be critical of free speech in English, you first have to be literate in the language…
Brigitte Bardot, animal welfare activiste, complaining about ritual slaughter of goats and sheep in the ‘hood has been found guilty of a hate crime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_en_ce/france_bardot_racism
What a sick ignorant joke this is on us all.
I too, am ashamed of Canada.
What ignorant, ignorant people these HRC and their personal appeasers are.
Pox on them all.
What they are reaping now we’ll be forced to sow soon with our lost personal rights being rubbed in our faces.
I watched CTV (Calgary) news this evening to see if they were covering the Witch Hunt.
No mention.
However it’s great to hear that 500 rubber ducks were dumped in the fountain of Alberta’s Legislature to commemorate the ducks that got their asses killed by swimming in a Ft. Mac tailings pond.
Oh, and kd lang is getting a star on Canada’s walk of fame. Which is great — I like her music and all that.
Just figured that covering our loss of freedoms might be a smidgen more important than the aforementioned items. This is why I gave up watching CTV news. The only time it comes on now is if my wife finds where I hid the remote.
Job opportunity:
http://www.chr.alberta.ca/jobs/postings/049276.htm
Job Title: Chief Commissioner, Alberta Human Rights And Citizenship Commission
Let’s not be so hasty to be ashamed of Canada. The sociological pendulum that has swung so far since the 1960’s has at least slowed its momentum and perhaps even reversed direction. Expressions of shame are counter productive and have been used effectively by those who the pushed the pendulum to its current extreme; pride in our culture and our Country will bring it back.
There most likely is no proximity of duty of care due the readers due to no relationship to their readers. The Chartered Accountings firms escape from negligant financial statements defrauding investers.(Hercules v. Ernst and Youg and Arthur Anderson and ENRON)
If Dion weren’t so f*cking inept as opposition leader he would take this CPC fumble and run into the end-zone with it.
On the other hand, when is the last time anyone saw left-leaners inspired by talks of freedom of speech, democracy or the incredible sacrifices many Canadians made to preserve them?
Ashamed of Canada?….No f*cking way.
Ashamed of the lack of conservative leadership on closing down these ‘star chambers’?….Oh yeah.
Before I go about looking the web… does anyone here know of a site/blog that supports the HRC’s?
Just wondering how many people could believe this is a good thing and what they could possibly be saying about this mickey mouse/kangaroo court proceedings.
If I find something interesting, I will let you know.
Monty Python’s HRC vs publisher of the “Dirty Hungarian Phrase Book”:
Bailiff: “Skip the impersonations. You are Alexander Yalt?”
Publisher: “I am.”
Bailiff: “You are hereby charged that on the 28th day of May, 1970, you did willfully, unlawfully, and with malice of forethought, publish an alleged English-Hungarian phrase book with intent to cause a breach of the peace. How do you plead?”
Publisher: “Not guilty.”
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/hungry.htm
What does it mean when intentional satire becomes absurd reality?
What intellectual fly-weights the multi-cultists have mustered to go through the motions of their travesty of a mock sham of a trial! The reason is probably twofold; they have no greater depth either in Complainants or Overseers, and it is patently obvious that given the make-it-up-as-we-go-along world of this hearing, they don’t need it. No defense argued with evidence, logic and truth is permitted.
But the motions must be gone through: they need our participation to pretend to themselves that they rigorously defeated the best arguments we could bring against them.
Their conclusion is forgone; their minds made up so long ago that the neurons have ossified.
I am very proud of that portion of Canada that is fighting back.
Immigration for to long has been predicated on the premise that we don’t care if you are a terrorist or golden triangle drug lord just as long as you and your extended 43 person familys vote liberal, now we are witnessing the results on both sides, courts and complainers, Canada does not need any more tax auditors and cab drivers, we need people that will come here to work not clog up these worthless liberal kangaroo courts breaking the treasury and taxpayers. And Canadian Observer, thanks to those ill informed Ontario voters PMSH has no majority, just imagine the howl from the usual morons in the MSM if he closed down these farces now.
bartinsky,
Last time I checked, Keith Martin didn’t have a majority either but at least he is making a moral stand(can you believe it?…. a liberal?).
And if PM Harper is going to govern based on the media’s potential reactions, he isn’t much of a leader is he?
As per the “morons” in the media, I suggest you watch the video(put aside some time)that Kate linked to a few posts down titled “Levant, Martin vs Fine”.
You’ll see that some of the dim bulbs in our media are slowly being enlightened to the fact they are quickly becoming the # 1 target on the assorted HRC’s hit lists.
Perhaps this is a great opportunity for Harper to gain some allies in the media.
Christ knows he needs some if he is ever going to gain majority status.
(it’s the joos!)
“Then, he went on later to claim that in his letter to the National Post, which also included the phrase ‘mutually acceptable’ that the NP writer Jonathan Kay (joo!!) might have added that phrase all by himself!
Where are our legal champions? Diefenbaker would have demolished these fools. This is a political fight not a legal tea party. They are defending with the wrong weapons. The media has to be forced to cover this misuse of power. A lawyer meekly protesting the rules of engagement doesn’t do much. The battle should be fought on the street in front of the Kangaroo Court as loud and offensively as possible. Now is the time for action, noise and fury. Follow the Greenpeace and OPEC protestors manual for results.
Martin B: “What does it mean when intentional satire becomes absurd reality?”
The ship’s sinking.
addendum to above post:
Martin B: “What does it mean when intentional satire becomes absurd reality?”
The ship’s sinking. All hands on deck.
Thinking about the show trial last night I am wondering if Faisal Joseph is gunning for an aquittal. Awan (a biased witness since he has been hired by the law firm which is examining him..)has been proven to be a liar under a quick cross exam and their witness looked like he was supporting Macleans.
This way the HRCs can continue on their merry way for other less visible targets, Macleans will now be wary and Joseph can play this to the Moslem Brotherhood overseas. See, there really is a war against Islam!! Even the HRC with a 100% conviction rate on hate speech did not convict a mainstream magazine on Islamophobia!!
Wonder what Rage Boy would do?
Unless of course Joseph is truly that unprepared for this “trial” but I find that stretching a bit since he does work for a well-established law firm.
We will see.
Look away! Avert your eyes to this abomination! You aren’t supposed to hear this blasphemy…
Multicult dogma dictates Islam ( the official poster kid of the HRC cult) is incapable of bigotry and racism…shhhhh we can’t discuss this… das iss verbotten!