I like Rippin, however irrelevant he is

Rippin: the article depicts Muslims as "the other"

Rippin points out what the sock puppets have never done: that, in one part, Steyn was using Col. Khaddafi's words, and he leaves Khaddafi's words out there for the reader to contemplate.

Rippin is less partisan and more honest that Awan.

He has not, in fact, pointed out a single factual error as yet; he disagrees with Steyn's interpretations. But no factual errors as yet.

Again, that's irrelevant. Because none of this is relevant to the law.

Julian Porter has objected to Faisal Joseph's question about the "meaning" of the article; about what "readers would think". Rippin is not an expert in that; he's an expert in the Koran. He's not an expert about Maclean's, or Steyn, or what journalism means, or what readers mean. And, in the context of a lawsuit about words, only the judges -- or the 'roos, here -- can determine that meaning, because that determination is the point of the law. Is it hate speech or not?