The Flight Deck

Comment from Babs
Time: January 13, 2008, 4:10 pm

I agree with about 80% of what you have to say. As with most things governmental, a certain “mission creep” has seeped into the idea of “human rights tribunals” that I find truly chilling… gah, just typing it makes me a little sick.
People can’t afford attorneys? How about we supply one? Just like we promise in the Miranda rights here in the U.S. “If you are unable to afford an attorney, one will be supplied to you by the court.”
The VERY IDEA that the complaintant doesn’t even need to show up is a miscarraige of the “HUMAN RIGHTS” of the Respondent IMO. This person is not afforded the RIGHT to face his accuser. Instead, he is made to stand before a gov’t bureaucrat and plead his case. Mark Steyn and the magazine that published the exerpts of his recent book will be put in the same position.
Do you agree with the recent ruling that Ezara referred to where a Christian pastor wrote a letter to his local newspaper in which he voiced strong disagreement with homosexual activity? Should he have been punished? Should the paper that published it be punished? If someone had a letter published in a newspaper in which they stated their opinion that abortion is murder should they be punished for making anyone that has had an abortion feel uncomfortable? Where do you draw the line on this kind of thing? Are we no longer allowed to make dissenting statements in public lest the gov’t swoops down on us for offending one of many, many diverse social opinions?
I find your analogy to a drug abuser to be somewhat specious.The remedy for that hypothetical you put forth would be greater controls on the distribution of the drug, not the outlawing of someone stating that they thought the drug should be taken off the market because someone was abusing it…
I watched all 4 videos that Ezara put up on his web site today, twice… I also read the complaint and his written response. The VERY IDEA that he was forced to appear for an interogation based on the shoddy complaint and his rather estute rebuttal is a disgrace. And, it is a disgrace to all free people in the Northern hemisphere. Even the guy that set up these tribunals years ago weighed in on Ezara’s side saying that they never intended “thought crime” or “speech” to be considered by these quasi-governmental agencies.
On the plus side, I bet that government worker went home and had a double scotch Friday night… He cleaned her clock!
I am sorry Michelle but maybe it is time to do away with “Human Rights Tribunals.” If this is what it has come to then maybe everyone needs to be equally invested in the outcome.

Comment from Babs
Time: January 13, 2008, 4:19 pm

we will use their own institutions and their own supposed tolerance against them and win in their own courts.

I followed a link on his page to an editorial that claimed they DON’T WIN in the courts and therefore have shifted strategy to these tribunals. The idea that a Muslim would invest in an attorney and court time, with the possibility of ending up having to pay the other guy’s court costs in order to say that he has had his feelings hurt and, some intangible “something” was going to happen to Muslims in general (without providing any basis for that statement) has disuaded a lot of complaints. That is how it should be. Having to answer to one’s own gov’t without the complainant making themselves available is a kangaroo court as far as I am concerned and very dangerous.
You bring up the idea of small claims court. To my knowledge, both parties are required to appear. If one doesn’t, the other wins by default. Just as when you plead a traffic ticket. If the cop doesn’t show up, you get off. Why is this “system of justice” so different?

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 13, 2008, 7:29 pm

Our of curiousity, Babs, where do you get the idea that the complainant does not have to appear before the tribunal?

BTW I think you misinterpreted my analogy regarding drug abuse. Or perhaps I should more accurately say you twisted it. I agree that the solution would be tighter controls on the distrubition of the drug. Although make them as tight as you want, somebody will undoubtedly find their way around it. But, in the same vein, my point was the solution might be tighter controls on the legislation (I think they went too far with adding this hate speech stuff to human rights legislation), not scrapping human rights commissions altogether.

In fact, I believe you may have made my point for me. You said:
The remedy for that hypothetical you put forth would be greater controls on the distribution of the drug, not the outlawing of someone stating that they thought the drug should be taken off the market because someone was abusing it…

And I say, exactly. My point is that the remedy is greater controls on the distribution of the drug, not the banning of the drug itself. And the solution here is scaling back how far they have taken the legislation, not eliminating the Commission.

And although poor Ezra is being ‘interrogated’, if you follow his links you will see that that the Commission hasn’t even decided whether to proceed with the matter. No, the Commission is in the investigative stage. In other words, where they sit down with both sides to get the full story before making a decision on whether the matter should proceed to a tribunal hearing.

Which makes me wonder about Ezra’s ‘interrogation’ – BTW you don’t suppose his choice of language is any way to set us up, do you … kangaroo court, interrogation – does the legislation ‘force’ him to attend? I would think its more likely he can choose not to. Sure, if he chooses not to present his side of the story, the Commission will only have the complainant’s evidence in front of it to make a decision on but that would be his choice. And the decsion, remember, will not be what his punishment should be, who wins or loses, but simply whether the matter proceeds to the next stage, a hearing.

And BTW that’s also likely the reason that the complainant was not present. (Is that where you get the idea that the complaianant doesn’t have to show up from?) If it gets as far as a hearing, the complainant will give evidence and Ezra will get his ‘day in court’, so to speak, to be able to face his accusers and cross-examine them. So never fear. If it actually gets that far, the kangaroo court will actually give Ezra due process. Despite what he has to say about them. Which, BTW, some of what he has to say, some might actually consider slanderous.

And the guy who started the Commissions, who you say weighed in Ezra’s side, actually weighed in pretty firmly on my side. After expresing his opinion that “there should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons”, he reportedly said that it would be best to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation. Not that the whole human rights process should be trashed.

Comment from Babs
Time: January 13, 2008, 9:28 pm

Which makes me wonder about Ezra’s ‘interrogation’ – BTW you don’t suppose his choice of language is any way to set us up, do you … kangaroo court, interrogation – does the legislation ‘force’ him to attend? I would think its more likely he can choose not to.

Well, didn’t you hit the nail on the head… His “choice of language” as you say. I guess if had chosen to not use his “language” to publish the Mohammed cartoons in the west in the first place, he wouldn’t now feel a need to video tape his examination with a Canadian bureaucrat and bring his lawyer along… He also wouldn’t feel such extreme resentment for having to sit there and defend 800 years of Common Law.

does the legislation ‘force’ him to attend? I would think its more likely he can choose not to.

I wish you were more sure about this… So, if he chose to not present himself in person, the complaint would continue apace… It is like asking a married man when he stopped beating his wife. If he refuses to reply, the implication is that he continues to beat his wife.

As far as the complainant is concerned, if he does indeed need to appear in front of the same bureaucracy, I will be very interested to hear what he has to say. I would love to hear the bureaucrat ask him about the fire bombing of the Jewish temple and ask him to come up with crimes as grandiose as that which he can link to the article in question. Wouldn’t that be an interesting discussion? Actually not, because he won’t be able to substantiate his claim.
I am willing to split the loaf with you Michelle. If you think this “Tribunal” can be scaled back to mediate housing and employment disputes, so be it. But, you have yet to weigh in on the Christian pastor espousing his Christian beliefs in a public forum and being punished for it. As someone schooled in the nuances of the law, I am amazed that you are so willing to skate so close to the edge of our fundimental liberty of free speech to bring so called relief to minority opinion.

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: January 14, 2008, 12:06 am

I question the very idea of human rights. Not as a concept, but as a part of codified law. How can one specify what, exactly, one is due simply by being part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Likewise, if we codify Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are there not other rights we might be missing? Might these rights we codified be mis-interpreted to cover ideas that were not considered in the legislation?

More importantly, once enshrined in law might those rights infringe upon the rights of another? I’ve long maintained that they very essence of a right is that it does not place an obligation upon another individual, beyond leaving one alone.

So now there’s a right to not be offended, or a right not to be talked badly about? There are existing statutes to deal with slander, libel, defamation and the like. In this case I have to question the authority of the court to even begin to try the case — I recognize no court that can try me for stating my mind. That in itself might be a human rights violation, for is it not our capability of sentient thought and our ability to speak our minds that separates us from other mammals, along with the construction and usage of tools?

There is only one human right — the right to do as you darned well please. The resultant responsibility is to take the consequences for your actions. Any court that thinks it has the power to punish mere opinion has overstepped its bounds. Any attempt by that court to require a defendant to spend part of his or her life, liberty, and property to defend against such a nuisance thus violates the inherenet human rights of the defendant.

Were the court to stick to prosecution of actions and not words, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Since the court seems to think it can judge the ramifications of opinion, at least in this early stage, the court is the problem in respect to human rights and the protection thereof.

– Max

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: January 14, 2008, 12:37 am

Just finished watching the video, and in my humble opinion that man needs to have five hours of his life restored. It can be done so with money, it can be done so with a decision and severe fines upon the folks who let this even get to the discovery stage. The fact of the matter is that he should have never been called to this psuedo-court and forced to waste his time answering these charges.

Then again, I’m in the USA where lawsuits designed to bleed money are an art form.

I don’t have a lot of moral high grounc to stand on here, being in the USA.

Comment from KrisinNewEngland
Time: January 14, 2008, 12:02 pm

This all sounds like appeasement to me. There obviously is more to this than all the parties are revealing, especially this Tribunal. It almost feels as if the organization the complainant is part of is holding the Tribunal’s feet to some kind of fire.

The printing of those cartoons is just that – printing cartoons. If someone takes offense, then they can just stop reading and looking. If it’s against a religious belief, then turn away. The fact that the Tribunal is giving any weight to the complaint by even entering a discovery/investigative phase really does lend itself to the idea that there is more here than meets the eyes.

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 14, 2008, 7:43 pm

Babs, I said I think HR Commissions should be scaled back, not that I thought they woud be. Its wider than just housing and employment disputes, BTW. Its any service or facility open to the public. So for example, schools (education), transporation, etc.

But, you have yet to weigh in on the Christian pastor espousing his Christian beliefs in a public forum and being punished for it.

It could just be that I have neither the time nor the inclination to weigh in on everything.

As someone schooled in the nuances of the law, I am amazed that you are so willing to skate so close to the edge of our fundimental liberty of free speech to bring so called relief to minority opinion.

Its exactly because I am “schooled in the nuances of the law” that I feel the way that I do. I firmly believe in free speech as a constitutional right. I also believe that it, like all rights, has to be subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. And that’s why I feel these matters shouldn’t be dealt with by human rights commissions. The balancing ionvolved is too important, too critical … it needs to be done in a court, not by a quasi-judicial tribunal.

BTW don’t get too worked up about Ezra defending 800 years of common law.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

The man throws a lot of crap around, a significant amount of which is misleading and just plain wrong. Some of it I’ve already pointed out. Here’s some more. Violation of 800 years of common law? Common law has always been subject to statutory law and I have yet to hear one sane person every call a piece of legislation a violation of common law, 800 years or otherwise.

And if the human rights process was a violation of the Charter, which trumps each and every other law in this country, including the common law, it would be long gone. There is nothing in the Charter that says what Ezra just said. What the Charter does guarantee Ezra is the right to ‘fundamental justice”. Also known as natural justice. Similar, although maybe a bit larger, then what Americans call ‘due process”. That’s what he’s entitled to and that’s what he will get. His chance to face his accuser and cross-examine them, to call witnesses and bring forth evidence …

Here’s what I see. The man is using the internet to spout off, to twist and provide half-truths about a process and a law that he doesn’t like. If he doesn’t like the law, fine, let him tell us why. But it would be nice if he had the legitimacy to at least be honest and straight forward, instead of peppering his rant with half-truths. Frankly, from my point of view, its people like Ezra that give lawyers a bad name.

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: January 15, 2008, 12:16 am

Michelle, please bear in mind some of us follow a slightly different version of common law and rights, so naturally we in the USA are going to filter his statements through our version of common law and then scratch our bellies wondering why Canada might be a little different.

That said, I’m not certain he is why lawyers get a bad name. Seems to me his using the internet is a matter of medium, not fact, and he seems to state exactly why he considers the law and the court ill-conceived. His may be an edited video, but I find it difficult to disagree with the principles he’s espouting.

I’m sure there’s quite a bit I’m missing, that isn’t in the video or that I’m merely ignorant of with respect to Canadian law, but this looks on the face of it to be the kind of “bleed them dry” nuisance suit that’s only supposed to happen in my country, not yours.

The engineer in me can’t help but think that, at the rate Blackstone must be spinning in his grave, all it would take is a few magnets and a couple miles of copper wire to solve all the energy problems for North America.

Comment from Babs
Time: January 15, 2008, 7:39 am

Michelle,
You certainly like to fight your corner and it is obvious that you love your country. But, in this instance, we just must disagree.

“And that’s why I feel these matters shouldn’t be dealt with by human rights commissions.”

While on the one hand, we are in complete agreement, as your statement above implies, on the other hand I find this statement by you to be incorrect:

“Also known as natural justice. Similar, although maybe a bit larger, then what Americans call ‘due process”. That’s what he’s entitled to and that’s what he will get. His chance to face his accuser and cross-examine them, to call witnesses and bring forth evidence …”

No, that is not what he got, or is going to get, unless the Tribunal finds him “guilty” and he has the opportunity to appeal to a real court. What he got was being summoned in front of a functionary at his own expense without a chance to face his accuser, without the opportunity to cross-examine, without the ability to call witnesses and, in a “private” setting where he was allowed exactly one lawyer to accompany him and his wife if he so chose; no public, no press, no one to monitor from the general society. The only reason this is now public is because he video taped the proceedings and posted them on the internet, something the HRC asked him not to do!

You found his making public these proceedings distasteful; you claim he is “spouting off” and “twisting” things. Well, I submit that the best way to decide that opinion is with sunlight. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but, without his posting this interview on the internet, you would be unable to form an opinion… You might want to think about that while you continue to espouse your distaste for his actions.

“I have yet to hear one sane person every call a piece of legislation a violation of common law, 800 years or otherwise. ”

As I said a few comments ago, the very idea that a semi-judicial body is now adjudicating “thought crime” is certainly mission creep. This just might be the first time a sane person called a piece of legislation (that has been morphed way out of the bounds to which it was initially intended) a violation of Common Law…

Just this morning Mr. Levant posted his closing statement in which he “double dog dared” the HRC to find him guilty so he could get his day in court, in public, with the ability to call witnesses and, the re-instatement of his full rights as a free citizen of the nation of Canada. Of course, if he does get his day in court, it will be defending himself against the state, not the Saudi imam. The financial burden of discussing this in a true legal setting will be born by the taxpayers of Canada and Mr. Levant, not the Saudi imam…

What ever the outcome here, next at bat is Mark Steyn… I hope the HRC comes to a decision in Mr. Levant’s case before Mr. Steyn is forced to appear. I am confident that Mr. Steyn, his publisher and legal team are looking at Mr. Levant’s case very closely!

Comment from Babs
Time: January 15, 2008, 7:53 am

Heh! You know what would really be a riot? If Mr. Steyn and his publisher employed Mr. Levant to represent them during the inquisition part of the process. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 9:50 am

I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you Babs. And of course I have to fight my corner, how could I do less? All those misspent years in law school, you see…

But here’s the problem, before we can agree to disagree you have to have your facts straight. Which, despite my best efforts, you still don’t. And that’s in large part because of the misinformation Ezra is putting out. I wouldn’t have any issue with him putting any of these proceedings and his thoughts on them on the net, including this ‘bureaucratic interrogation”. IF he didn’t use the forum to put out misleading information.

So let’s try again. Ezra will get natural justice, fundamental justice, due process … all without ever setting foot in a court of law. And it will happen long before anyone finds him ‘guilty’ of anything.

Back to basics I suppose …. investigation, not interrogation.
IF…. repeat…. IF … .after this investigation, the commission refers the matter to the tribunal, then [without ever yet having been found guilty of anything by anybody ... if the matter is referred to the tribunal (which hasn't happened yet and may never happen) it just means that the commission thinks that the complainant has a case, it doesn't mean that Ezra has someow been tried and found guilty of anything]Ezra will have his opportunity to confront his accuser, cross-examine him, call witnesses and other forms of evidence, etc. Okay? All that without ever setting foot in a court of law. Because, and this is important, quasi-judicial bodies like human rights commissions have to follow the rules of natural justice. Despite what Ezra says, despite what he would have us all believe.

And that’s where my problem with Ezra comes in, why I say he gives lawyers a bad name. You know how people accuse laywers of being slimy, twisting things and lying, mis-stating evidence … doing anything to get their client off? Well, I see Ezra as twisting things, which is obviously misleading those who read his site. As a lawyer, he either knows or is easily able to find out exactly how the Alta human rights commission works. So he, of all people, shouldn’t be using his site to put out half-truths and misinformation on the process. That’s why I said what he did. It looks to me like he will do almost anything to make his points …and I would have no problem with him making his points if he gave out accurate information as to how the process works.

Oh yeah, and lest I forget, afer having the benefit of all that fundamental justice at a human rights hearing (if he ever gets that far), if he disagrees with the result or the process, he has every right to take the matter to the court for a review. Where he can again make his case.

So let’s agree to disagree then. As long as you understand that Ezra’s allegation of a kangaroo court is a pile of bullcrap. He may feel like the investigative stage is a kangaroo court and, if so, he is welcome to say so. To scream it in whatever media he chooses as loud as he wants. That’s called free speech.

But the actual tribunal phase, if it ever gets there, is not at all as Ezra would have you believe. Probably because this is Canada and not some country in Africa operating with a witch council (my apologies to any insulted countries in Africa which do not operate with witch councils).

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 9:55 am

Oh yeah, almost forget, violation of common law and mission creep.
1. Legislation is never a violation of the common law. The common law is simply judge made law, the rules made (or discovered or pulled down from the heavens if you believe some of the old legal scholars) by judges in cases where there was no applicable legislation.
2. Mission creep … although I think I know how you are using it I am not sure I know the term’s exact meaning. And I say this for this reason – does mission creep meaning the commission itself adding more to its powers? That is what Ezra implies they are doing. Because what happened here is that the human rights legislation was amended by the Legislature to add these additonal powers. So blame the politicians then, not the commissions.

Frankly, I think that bureaucrat showed a lot of restraint in those videos giving Ezra’s bullshit and attitude. If he put them up to make him look good and the commission look bad, in my opinion (one who actually understands the process), he just made himself look like a jackass.

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:06 am

Max, your common law and my common law are, if not 100% identical, then at least 95-98%, I would say. Both came from England and those like Blackstone, who you referenced. Our legal systems share a fair bit in common. It’s the legislation where we tend to differ.

I responded to Babs about why I think he gives lawyers a bad name. As to the rest of it, I would posit that your quite legitimate response is exactly as he wants it to be. By talking to those who would have no reason to be familiar with the process and giving inaccurate information, he does indeed make it look like a nuisance suit while he wrongfully pillors the commission. He is more than welcome to express why he consders both the law and the process ill-conceived, I would only ask that he put out accurate information so readers can make well-informed decisions as opposed to those made based on misinformation.

But you know what, it may well be a nuisance suit. In this case though you have to see the investigative stage as a good thing, this complainant is not just allowed to trot off to court with his nuisance suit. The commission stands as the gate keeper to decide whether the complainant will ever get to put his case forward. Because its only after the investigative stage and if the commission agrees with the complaiant that we move to the next step. No, not finding Ezra guilty because the commission agrees with the complainant. But moving the matter on to the hearing where another body will hear all the evidence from both sides and then decide.

As for nuisance suits, well, we have them in both countries. Likely because in the same way that we would rather set a guilty man free than convict an innocent one, we also tilt things to give plaintiffs their day in court. Did you know that it use to be in England that you couldn’t bring an action against somebody unless you had the king’s approval? Remember, both Cdn and American law came from there. And moved forward, as did English law, to give citizens an absolute right to use the courts. Subject, of course, to some limits which the courts themselves can put in place if they see one plaintiff bringing nuisance claims again and again.

Well, that’s my legal lecture for the day. I’m off to find a life. Alas, sadly for me and my lost life, I feel compelled to counter Ezra’s misinformation. We have been maligned!

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:15 am

PS
Max, just wanted to thank you for acknowledging the faults in the American system as we critically examine the Canadian one.

Which reminds me … do none of the states have human rights commissions?

Comment from Babs
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:31 am

Ezra will have his opportunity to confront his accuser, cross-examine him, call witnesses and other forms of evidence, etc. Okay?

In front of a divorce lawyer Michelle?

There really is no point in debating this with you anymore. It is bad law when functionaries adjudicate thought crime and free speech. It is bad law when the accused has to pay any financial burden to defend themselves against the state while the plaintive rides for free courtesy of the taxpayer; whether or not the plaintive somewhere down the road needs to start kicking in, initially the respondent has to pay to defend themselves in front of the state.
You have set up your barricades, and I have tried to make my case.

Note to self; do not debate Michelle on health insurance or free speech.

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:38 am

Whatever.
I just wanted to be sure you had your facts straight. Barricades? Heh.

Speaking of facts, one last one. In front of a 3 person panel, where divorce lawyers may or may not be welcome. (rolling eyes)

Comment from Babs
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:42 am

Roll your eyes all you want Michelle, then check out the decision by the AHRC which found the Christian Pastor guilty, led by a divorce lawyer!

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:46 am

And to think I thought you had stopped debating. Sorry, will check it out later if I have a chance, right now I really do need to get out of here. I will do my best to control the eye rolling though.

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:47 am

Oh yeah, if you ever do want me to actually check it out, you need to provide a link.

Comment from Babs
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:49 am

Thanks and, let’s get back to our adoration of plane pron…

When I set up my “Lex travel vacation package”; airfare, two nights hotel, meet and greet Lex, airplane extravaganza with Lex at the controls, and farewell cocktails… I will be sure to send you an invite!

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 15, 2008, 11:54 am

And I will do my best to be there with bells on.
Something tells me one thing we won’t have to worry debating about is Lex’s flying skills!

Comment from Max Damage
Time: January 16, 2008, 1:04 am

Michelle, I hold The Law to be a thing almost on the scale of Divine Intervention – all Men are Created Equal and under The Law they are. Thus my gripe here is that The Law has taken time and property from Ezra in this case as well as property from the Canadian taxpayer to bring forth. Even if its not a legal case yet, and this is in the discovery process, it’s legalistic application of leeches to an anemic person — the leech didn’t kill you directly, the blood loss was the ultimate cause of death.

Honestly, I only thought things were this bad in my country.

We in the USA don’t generally have Human Rights Commissions. For one reason, there isn’t much need as local district prosecutors tend to be fairly responsive, and second if the local folks don’t prosecute you can always get the ACLU or a Federal prosecutor involved, or even a lawyer who will work for nothing and write it off as pro-bono work on his taxes. Given that the loser never pays in this country, for the lawyer every case is like arguing for the death penalty — if you lose, it’s not the lawyer that’s going to die, so might as well go all out. If you win, you get a negotiated percentage which can be quite nice given the American jury only decides the winner and the judge awards at his discretion.

Now I admit if I’m a single mother of 4 kids and forced out of my apartment because the landlord doesn’t like the color of my nose hairs and I’ve no money to hire a lawyer this is a very good system. A lawyer working pro-bono for me can defend me, seek compensation, whatever is appropriate.

The problem as I see it is that not only are we taking from people’s sustinence to hire lawyers, on both sides of the bench, we’re taking from them under the threat of later prosecution.

Common Law. Used to be applicable to all. Used to cost the same to all. Used to be….

Times have changed, haven’t they?

Comment from Michelle
Time: January 16, 2008, 6:11 am

Well, you have my sympathies with regard to the ACLU, that’s for sure. Just another example of a good idea perverted beyond belief, IMO.