Andrew Coyne falls Through the Looking Glass
Into Orwellian Hell.
The first rule of HRC is don’t speak against the HRC.
The second rule of HRC is there are no rules to HRC.
Coyne has moved on to Part Deux of today’s hearing.
2:46 PM
Roger McConchie is making a kind of “prior history†argument, i.e. the complainants are saying that the other 20 articles provide “context.†But the complaint has to do with just the Steyn article. Just as a defendant’s prior record cannot be used against him (except as “similar fact†evidence, to show a modus operandi), so Maclean’s prior articles can’t be used to prove the harm caused by Steyn’s piece. The common thread: you have to prove guilt based on the facts of the case at hand. If the argument is that the earlier articles provide an interpretive filter through which to read the Steyn piece, well maybe they do—but the contention in the complaint is that the Steyn article exposes Muslims to hatred by itself. So they’re contradicting themselves.2:58 PM
Coda to the preceding: this all assumes normal rules of evidence apply. Or indeed, any. But as they don’t in this case, well, we’re about to hear the tribunal’s ruling.3:00 PM
Glory glory—they’re ruling prior articles (i.e., prior to Steyn’s Oct. 23 2006 piece) out of bounds, but allowing subsequent articles. Solomonic, or incoherent? I report, you decide.
This is all so incredible to me, even though I’ve been following this mess for months. If I was reading this as a piece of fiction, I would be outright roaring with laughter at some of the stupidity. Unfortunately, it’s not fiction; it’s a sorry piece of fact that’s actually happening. Still, I keep waiting for someone to say, “Dorothy, wake up.”
Comment by sjt — June 3, 2008 @ 6:11 am
[...] GIRL ON THE RIGHT: “Andrew Coyne falls Through the Looking Glass” …. [...]
Pingback by Steyn Showtrial Day 2.1 « Free Mark Steyn! — June 3, 2008 @ 8:32 am