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.
jeff – people who support the HRCs are Kinsella, Dr. Dawg, BigCityLib..
What I find so puzzling, and I’ve said this before, is the lack of both definitions and valid causality in the case.
No-one in the case seems willing to examine the term ‘Islamophobia’ – which means an irrational fear of Islam. The CIC and Islamic community tosses this word in whenever anyone criticizes the Islamic ideology. They are essentially saying that any examination and critique of Islam is not allowed because it is then defined as an ‘irrational fear’!!! When it is instead, a rational examination of Islamic axioms of belief and behaviour!
Then, what about evidence of causality? How can one link what was in an article/speech whatever, with the thoughts and behaviour of another person?
Example: Unless the individual himself declares that he was motivated to be opposed to Islam by the article of Steyn, – and even that is suspect – how can one conclude this his opposition to Islam is not based on his own readings of the Koran, his own awareness of the many speeches made by imams about their agenda of world domination, his awareness of the many terrorist attacks by radical Islams…
So, on these two areas – I have a problem. And the HRCs don’t seem at all involved. Indeed, Barbara Hall’s infamous judgment, a judgment made by her without any legal mandate to do so, concluded that Macleans was engaged in Islamophobic action. See didn’t question the term; she didn’t question the causal links. Never mind that she didn’t even question Macleans. Or the fact that she had no legal or procedural right to make and make public, such a conclusions.
Thank you ET, I did find dawg last night, appreciate your help.
How many of the posters here are writing, phoning, talking to , their MP’s or MLA’s who can repeal this human rights garbage trial.
Otherwise you are merely sucking wind.