Two different conversations

There have been two different conversations in court this morning. Faisal Joseph, the lawyer for Mohammed Elmasry, opened with a second-rate Marxist soliloquy about the media -- and how Muslims have not been able to compete with the "powerful media" in Canada. That's a rhetorical improvement on what Elmasry himself told the Canadian Association of Journalists two years ago, when he talked about Canada's media run by the "zhoos".

The rest of it is grievance-mongering, race-hustling and general whining about the editorial unfairness of Maclean's.

Right now, I'm listening to Khurrum Awan -- a privileged law graduate, working for the Ontario Courts as an articling student (before he goes on to work for Joseph's firm) -- whining about his marginalization. Only in a human rights tribunal would a professional complainer, who has had Op-Ed appear in every major daily newspaper in Canada, say he's been marginalized.

That's one conversation -- and that's the Canadian Islamic Congress's legal strategy. They're trying to make a general political complaint.

The other conversation is the one put forward by Macleans's lawyers. It's also known as "legal arguments". It doesn't get into political discussions, or editorial explanations. For the B.C. Human Rights Code does not weigh political or editorial considerations; it is neither necessary to prove political incorrectness or editorial "irresponsibility" to convict Maclean's; and it is not a defence for Maclean's to prove that it was politically correct or editorially responsible. It's just not legally relevant. Maclean's is focusing on boring old laws, written by dead white men, talking about things like precedent, freedom of speech, etc., etc.

In a real court, Joseph and his bigoted client would be laughed out of court, and have to pay Maclean's costs.

But this isn't a real court. This is a kangaroo court, with three leftist activists as panellists.

This is the same B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that has come up with such gems as a ruling that McDonald's can't force its staff to wash their hands, because it's discrimination; or that bus drivers have the right to take 118 sick days a year. They're nuts.

Normally, the respondents' lawyers -- the eminent Julian Porter, and the sharp-as-a-knife Roger McConchie -- would slice Joseph's amateur-hour efforts to ribbons. But: isn't it Joseph who is speaking the language of the tribunal panellists?