Now that the joke trial is over the big question is - Will the Tribunal convict? Opinions vary:
Steyn hopes and thinks they will.Somebody ought to be taking bets. My own bet would be "no", and for reasons similar to BCF’s.
Ezra thinks maybe.
Blazing Cat Fur says "no".
Even though the Tribunal panel of tyrants likely believes Maclean’s is guilty and should be fined and censored, they’ll not want to risk jeopardizing their little "human rights" scam when Maclean’s appeals its conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada or when parliament finally starts hacking away at the HRCs’ ‘mandate’.
If the BC Tribunal decides not to convict they, and their supporters, will be able to proclaim that "the process works" and then go on hearing, even encouraging, complaints from the likes of Mohammed Elmasry and his CIC. Since the process is, largely, the punishment - with defendants being dragged before kangaroo courts for "hate" crimes and having to spend small fortunes on lawyers - the chill on free speech can be accomplished without the need to convict anyone.
At least that’s what I’d do if I were a morally and ethically challenged "Human Rights" bureaucrat who was paying close attention to which way the wind was blowing.
4 comments:
I think they can't help themselves, they will convict because they must stand up for their principles. HA!
This issue is still flying way under the radar of the average Canadian, so they will think that they can convict MacLean's without anyone really noticing, and they might be right. Mention HRC's and Macleans to your fellow workers, they have not heard of it, my office mate was shocked when I told her what was going on.
They risk nothing by convicting, they do not care if MacLean's takes it to a real court, the damage will already have been done.
You could be right, Hunter. I hope so. But we shall see.
I am not certain what the BC HRC will do , but I am leaning 80% convict , 20% acquit.
You assume the BC HRC has a logical thought process , but for this type of idealistic bureaucrat that is a real stretch !
If they were logical thinkers they would never have accepted the case in the first place .
Brian, I agree about the Tribunal panel's thought process. They're logically challenged when it comes to assessing complaints of "hate" vs free speech and "human rights". Their ideology drives them to uncritically accept "grievances" from hyper-sensitive and radical minorities.
However, in this case there is some relatively strong opposition coming from 'liberals' who in other circumstances would have supported (and probably did) their agenda and practices. So the Tribunal's instincts for self-preservation could overcome its desire to convict.
Post a Comment