Comments on: Osgoode Hall v Mark Steyn

By: Steynian 183 « Free Mark Steyn!

Steynian 183 « Free Mark Steyn! — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:23:19 +0000

[...] OSGOODE HALL vS. Mark Steyn …. [...]

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:33:43 +0000

It seems there has been a slip of late, although this site still has it very high. What I do find interesting is that Awan managed to get himself a clerkship, in light of the comments on that site. The material of his I’ve read around the intertubes is very poorly written.

By: Anonymous Law Grad

Anonymous Law Grad — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:18:47 +0000

Osgoode Hall is hardly Canada’s top law school. It’s not even the best law school in Toronto.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:03:10 +0000

This is why I’ve adopted the cynical view, Dale - if Steyn loses at first instance and it goes to a proper court, then the whole institutional structure these ninnies have built for themselves will come apart. If he wins, they’ll go back to picking on people who can’t afford a team of lawyers.

Maybe Osgoode Hall could start up a new pro-bono project?

By: Dale

Dale — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:13:05 +0000

You folks are only hearing about the high profile cases like Styne’s and Levant’s. It has gone a ways past sanity here in Canada. Here are a couple of other ridiculous examples of a bureaucracy, created with the best of intentions, that has badly run amok and, unfortunately, 90% of Canadians have never even heard of these commissions.
Guy Earle is a stand up comedian who must now stand trial before the British Columbia Human rights commissions because he insulted a drunken lesbian heckler during his performance at a club in BC. Man, if you heckle a stand-up comedian you had better be thick skinned.
Stephen Boissoin is a catholic priest who spoke against homosexuality in one of his sermons. This is his religious conviction. He has been already been before the Alberta Canadian Human Commission and has been sentenced very unreasonably.
He must pay a $5000 penalty to the complainant, who IS NOT EVEN GAY. This is because the complainant suffered “ridicule” because he layed the complaint?????
He must also apologize in writing to the complainant.
He must publish, in the local newspaper, an apology and renounce his views on homosexuality.
He must never, ever utter another “disparaging” word about gays anytime, anywhere, even in his private emails. Note that the word is “disparaging” and not “hateful”. This is really scary.
This catholic priest is not entitled to his religious views. Remind anyone of pre-war Germany?
There is a cartoon from BC showing a stand-up comedian, on stage, saying “Did you hear the one about the lesbian…er… muslim…er….better make that the Christian….” This is unfortunately, all too true.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed the case against Macleans magazine and Mark Styne. They chose self-preservation as opposed to certain suicide in taking on Macleans. They will keep on targeting the people who don’t have the resources to fight back. They are getting a bad name here, and about time. There is an RCMP investigation into the Canadian HRC, an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner, and there is going to be a parliamentary review of the CHRC.
The British Columbia HRC has heard Styne’s case and has yet to render its verdict.
The Ontario HRC said it didn’t have jurisdiction and wouldn’t hear the case but delivered a drive-by smear verdict to the press anyway.
It is unbelievable that someone can be charged in multiple different HRCs in Canada for the same “hate thought crime”. It goes a little beyond the concept of double jeopardy.
We are fighting back. Ezra Levant is leading the charge. I don’t know him personally but I have come to respect the man for his spirit and tenacity. The fight has produced the three investigations mentioned in the paragraph above.
We will not relinquish our freedoms of speech, press, religion. We will continue the fight.

By: Hank Ford

Hank Ford — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:13 +0000

Unfortunately Osgoode Hall isn’t such a good school anymore, probably in the top 10 of Canadian law schools, but there are only 16 - and Kwan attests to this fact.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:01:17 +0000

IMO, saying someone’s beliefs are a crock of sh*t is NOT vilification - otherwise there’d be an awful lot of vilification out there, and I’d be guilty of some of it.

To my mind, vilification is a much stronger concept. For example, vilification is making statements to the effect that persons with a particular belief or ethnicity are less than human, with the implication that such people should therefore be killed or harmed.

By: DeusExMacintosh

DeusExMacintosh — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:29:02 +0000

Oh and I loved the chicago incident highlighted by Blair…

Mahmoud Alkhazaleh, 53, of the 5500 block of North Mango Avenue also was charged with aggravated battery and vehicle invasion in a June 9 attack on a man who allegedly had honked his horn to prod Alkhazaleh to step out of the path of his truck, according to court documents. Alkhazaleh called the victim a “blue-eyed devil” and an “ ‘American [expletive]’ during a physical attack that included throwing rocks and spitting,” according to court documents.

Well you can see why Alkhazaleh was shirty. He was thinking about all that personal injury compensation he wasn’t able to claim for the American dude running his ass over without warning.

By: DeusExMacintosh

DeusExMacintosh — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:14:24 +0000

Just for clarification… is saying that you think someone’s beliefs are a “crock of sh*t” vilification, or just a statement of strongly held personal opinion?

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:18:04 +0000

Well I can trump you all. That solicitor is a very old friend of mine! Oh, and Adrien I certainly do not see YOU as an AWABL. Few people with IQs above 115 are.