Rippin on Steyn

Faisal Joseph: Have you read the article?

Andrew Rippin: Yes.

FJ: What's your view of it's depiction of Muslims?

Julian Porter: Objection -- "might I ask the witness to be excused?"

JP: "He can express opinions about what is inaccurate in the piece... But what he says about what the article means is truly your [the BCHRT] job... He can say what is wrong. What he as an expert interprets what this article means, that's not his expertise. He's an expert on the Koran and the interpretation of it. For him to say he took from this Canadian magazine this meaning here and there, I say with respect, is not what he's an expert for... leeway doesn't apply to an expert to say "this is what an article means". It's up to you [the panel] to determine that. You can't be helped by his.. [expertise] in the Koran."

FJ: "this is what I plan on being limited to... factual inaccuracies with respect to Muslims and Islam in the article... he'll be giving evidence that Mark Steyn's article is based on a misperception of Islam... factually, historically and Koranically incorrect"

Ezra Levant: Uh, truth is not a defence under the BCHRT. And lies are not a grounds for conviction. They're irrelevant.

JP: "it's a basic, cardinal rule that an expert may only testify as to what his expertise in... you [the panel] do not need help in what this article means and says, and by inference what the ordinary reader will take from it."

Roo MacNaughton: "we will have no difficulty with allowing the evidence.. on the basis of [FJ's] description of the evidence"

So back comes Rippin