timeimmortal

Ezra Levant has been doing some research, and has noted that there seem to be quite a lot of parallels between modern Canadian human rights commissions and their medieval counterparts. Not surprisingly, the most striking parallels concern the original Star Chamber from around 1632.

For example:

I was fascinated to learn that, among its other victims, entire juries were tried in the Star Chamber if they didn’t render the politically appropriate verdict.

But the most striking analogy was a Star Chamber order of 1632, which is a template for the show trial of Maclean’s magazine of 2008.

According to Wikipedia, 1632 is when the Star Chamber:

…banned all “news books” because of complaints from Spanish and Austrian diplomats that coverage of the Thirty Years’ War in England was unfair. As a result, newsbooks pertaining to this matter were often printed in Amsterdam and then smuggled into the country, until the ban was lifted six years later.

So foreign trouble-makers who objected to free speech and who insisted on politically correct versions of current events managed to censor the news. Plus ca change.

But wait, it gets better:

I have found a legal precedent that the BCHRT can use to convict [comedian Guy Earle] even if his jokes were funny. Especially if his jokes were funny!

I spent some time today reading a book I found on Google Books. (It’s an amazing resources; not only has Google scanned countless books, included old and rare books, but they’ve made those books text-searchable.) I was reading a book called The Star Chamber, published in 1880, that contained hundreds of decisions of that court. It also has a very interesting preface, that describes that court’s descent from a well-intentioned idea — a court big and tough enough to take on law-breaking bishops and sherriffs who would be impervious to justice of regular courts — into a corrupt political tool used to destroy the kings enemies, and confiscate their wealth.

The book has a readable summary of hundreds of cases. In it, I read a footnote about someone fined “severlie”, not for telling an offensive joke — but for laughing at it.

I couldn’t find the case of the illegal laugher, but I found a reference to it in a defamation judgment in another old book of Star Chamber cases. It starts on page 149, and the reference to the laugher is on page 152…

It’s nice to know that Canadian justice has caught up with the rest of the world and adopted 17th century standards of jurisprudence.

ebt writes in with a short answer to my question about human rights commissions and double jeopardy.

The short answer: no. Double jeopardy applies only to criminal prosecution. The proceedings of HRCs are not criminal in nature. Each government is acting to administer some aspect of its own jurisdiction. Thus the Ontario HRC was acting with respect to a publication in Ontario; the BCHRT with respect to distribution of printed material in B.C.; and the federal HRC in respect to distribution over the internet. Three distinct matters, three distinct actions by three distinct authorities. One stinking scandal.

Well, that does clear things up, and yet fails (at the same time) to reassure. What a bloody mess this HRC setup has turned out to be.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

David Warren points out something that has perhaps been missed in all the current debate over the human rights commissions and, in particular, the case against Maclean’s. Although in the end, the BCHRT was the only human rights enforcement body that went ahead and pursued the issue (the CHRC and OHRC dismissed the case), the case could potentially have been prosecuted in all three venues.

Now, perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I could weigh in on this matter more clearly…but would a case of such a multiple prosecution not be a violation of the concept of “double jeopardy”, something which Canadian citizens are ostensibly protected against in the Charter?

I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of “Kafkanada” — where you can be tried for the same imaginary “hate crimes” in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence — due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any “judgement” they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

Is this what Canada has become?

I alluded, yesterday, to the possibility that a conviction of Maclean’s by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal could have sweeping, national implications — despite the fact that in theory, HRCs don’t recognize or rely on precedent, and despite the fact that the BCHRT has no jurisdiction outside of British Columbia.

Ezra Levant today gives an example of a ruling handed down by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that demonstrates what that effect could possibly look like. It’s…damning, really, as it demonstrates that an HRC has appointed to itself the power to, in effect, demand that a person renounce his beliefs (because let us be honest: if one is not free to articulate one’s beliefs, is one really free to hold them in the first place?).

A Christian pastor [Stephen Boissoin]has been given a lifetime ban against uttering anything “disparaging” about gays. Not against anything “hateful”, let alone something legally defined as “hate speech”. Just anything negative.

So a pastor cannot give a sermon.

[Rather,] he must give a false sermon; he is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and apologize to his tormentor for having those views.

And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even though he has not.

That’s Alberta’s human rights commission. That’s the group where 15 bureaucrats are busily beavering away against me, because I published some Danish cartoons two years ago.

That’s the same “law” under which Maclean’s and Mark Steyn are charged.

I got into an argument once in which I made a crack about American ignorance of all things Canadian (the specific assertion I was responding to was my opponent’s implication that all of Canada experienced a two-month (8 week) stretch of the year in which the Sun did not rise). My opponent responded that I should be careful about making such cracks, in case the Yanks ever decided to invade hapless Canada.

I joked to him that he was presuming too much; specifically, I said, he presumed that I would view American invasion as a bad thing.

Would I? Especially in light of these rulings, I have to ask: would I?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

And the Maclean’s show trial winds down out in British Columbia.

This will be an interesting decision to watch. One one hand, Maclean’s lawyers note correctly that the BCHRT has no jurisdiction over anything outside of British Columbia, which ostensibly includes what Maclean’s can or cannot publish outside of British Columbia. As well, they are correct to note that the HRCs do not recognize the legal concept of precedent in considering opinions.

That said, there isn’t much doubt that a loss at this tribunal for Maclean’s will have sweeping, national ramifications. So the decision will, indeed, be interesting to watch.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

…any by earnest, I mean “tedium.”

Andrew Coyne is still liveblogging the Maclean’s hearing before the BCHRT. And I have to say: after going through two days of this, his irreverent attitude toward the whole idea of HRC “authority” is about the only refreshing thing in this whole odious business.

That and Ezra Levant’s sardonic wit…but Ezra doesn’t seem to be blogging today’s proceedings.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

One really just has to love Andrew Coyne’s way with words as he begins his second day of live-blogging the BCHRT show trial of Maclean’s magazine.

It looks like things have gotten off to a good start, and it appears that someone thought to spare Mr. Coyne any further Blackberry thumb by setting him up with EVDO.

9:32 AM Habemus dongle! The good folks at Rogers — wonderful people, never said a bad word about them — have kitted me out with some sort of external modem thingie, so I will not be forced to type with my thumbs today. KDO, I don’t know how you do it!

9:34 AM The tribunal enters. There’s a little ritual that plays out each time: the two contending sides, and some of the spectators, rise, as you would for a real judge in a real court. The rest of us stay seated, in silent protest.

9:36 AM Faisal Joseph up for the complainants. He’s promising to treat us to a tour of some of the seamier parts of the blogosphere. No guilt like guilt by association. He dumped a bunch of material on the Maclean’s side only last night — and apparently some more stuff this morning — which would ordinarily be out of order but not, as by now you will have guessed, here.

9:40 AM Khurrum Awan back on the stand. Joseph entering a Sept 2006 Ottawa Citizen poll in evidence, showing that two in five Canadians back racial profiling. Aha, clearly the evil hand of Steyn at work: he’s already influencing public opinion even before the Maclean’s piece appeared!

Whoops - not a poll, just a clipping of a Doug Fisher column. (Doug Fisher!? I thought he’d retired by then?) The panel is solemnly studying it… And studying it…. And studying… Now they’re going to “retire” to consider it. In this case that means actually leaving the room — as often as not they just kind of swivel round in their chairs and put their heads together, like kids sketching out a football play, though I’m willing to guess the other two go along with whatever the chair, alpha-commissioner Heather MacNaughton, says.

9:53 AM I remain impressed with Steyn’s ability to influence opinion even in advance of publication. I admit this seems implausible. However, we must always remember, good people of Salem, that when when it comes to witches, all things are possible, natural and supernatural…

As with yesterday, just keep clicking ‘REFRESH’ until the buzzer sounds.

Update: More goodness:

1:42 PM…And we’re back. The tribunal has decided to admit the blogs. The whole wide internet is their domain! They can’t hear complaints about blog posts, but they can take them into consideration in assessing questions of “impact.”

Mind you, having admitted them, the tribunal is surprised to discover it hasn’t got ‘em. The printouts, Faisal Joseph informs the panel, are “five minutes away.” Not to self: perform Google Maps search on “Kinko’s.”

To add to the sense of general chaos: the tribunal cannot as yet provide counsel with recordings of the proceedings, as apparently the microphone used has been picking up conversations between counsel. Just another day in Mayberry.

My God but this is a farce.

Update - When Nature Calls: Ezra Levant is chronicling this travesty live as well. He’s doing a more comprehensive analysis, especially of poor Mr. Awan’s having been exposed as a liar.

Update Jr.: Welcome, Steynians!

I have no talent for thinking up slogans, but this is important even to mention:

The Covenant Zone bloggers will be demonstrating in support of Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine, and against the ludicrous operation of “human rights” law in this country, when Mark’s hearing in front of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal kicks off, next Monday, June 2. We will meet at 8 AM in front of the Provincial Court House at 800 Hornby where, according to the BCHRT website, the hearing will take place.

We welcome all bloggers, readers, and informed and outraged citizens to join us. (Also: we will be discussing this tomorrow at our regular Thursday evening meeting in the atrium of the Vancouver Public Library, central branch, 7-9 pm, in front of Blenz Coffee — look for the blue scarves.)

Now since many people interested in this “trial” are not in the Vancouver area, we thought we would offer people a way of participating in our demonstration. We intend to carry signs and hand out leaflets. The problem we have is how to communicate the current “human rights” travesty in some catchy phrases or slogans. This is an invitation to send us ideas. We want slogans and/or aphorisms or short statements that can appeal to ordinary citizens, to communicate something of the evil that will be unfolding in the court house to those who may not know what is going on. We want phrases that will be memorable, perhaps even one day historical.

All I can think to say is to re-word Chesterton: free speech means speaking the unspeakable, or it means nothing at all.

Anyhow, all the details are here. If you’re in Vancouver (and my tracking software suggests that more than a few my Readers are from there) on June 2, show up for this!

Update: Welcome, Steynians!