Human rights complaint against Maclean's dropped

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

While commentators have said Steyn's demographic claims are way off-base, the CHRC concluded the views in the

article, "when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court."

Therefore, the Commission said there is no reason to warrant the appointment of a tribunal to look into the matter. In its four page decision, the Commission noted Steyn's "writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike."

Guess this is all over except the shouting.

[maldon_road]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Guess this is all over except the shouting.

Levant is cynical

By Ezra Levant

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like any petty tyranny, has a strong instinct for survival. As I predicted last week on the Michael Coren Show, that instinct would cause them to drop the complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's. And so they did.

With an RCMP investigation, a Privacy Commission investigation and a pending Parliamentary investigation, they're already fighting a multi-front P.R. war, and losing badly. Not a day goes by when the CHRC isn't pummelled in the media. Holding a show trial of Maclean's and Steyn, like the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal did earlier this month, would be writing their own political death sentence.

So they blinked. Against everything in their DNA, they let Maclean's go. That's the first smart thing they've done; because the sooner they can get the public scrutiny to go away, the sooner they can go about prosecuting their less well-heeled targets, people who can't afford Canada's best lawyers and command the attention and affection of the country's literati.....

LEVANT ON CHRC

[Wilber]

Interesting that this came down the day after the Mair SC decision. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall.

[maldon_road]

Interesting that this came down the day after the Mair SC decision. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall.

In Canada for those of us in favor of free speech there are few good decisions. But here we have two of them.

[MontyBurns]

In Canada for those of us in favor of free speech there are few good decisions. But here we have two of them.

Finally they are getting their heads on straight.

I thought Canada would never right itself.

[jdobbin]

Levant is cynical

As I said: nothing left but the shouting.

I think the Supreme Court decision on free speech did indeed have a role on the issue of fair comment.

[August1991]

When confronted, a few bullies backed off.

[Keepitsimple]

I wonder how much it cost MacLeans to defend themselves.

[eyeball]

Mark Steyn claimed that Muslims are on the verge of dominating Europe and the West because of a demographic shift

You'd have to be a moron to take this seriously no matter which way you shift.

[maldon_road]

I wonder how much it cost MacLeans to defend themselves.

Don't know about Macleans but Levant said he laid out 200K on his defense before the turd dropped it. He's suing the guy now for recovery.

[White Doors]

Now we just have to wait for the BCHRC to render their judgement. I secretly hope Macleans loses so we can get rid of all of these kangaroo courts.

[guyser]

I wonder how much it cost MacLeans to defend themselves.

Nothing.

[Keepitsimple]

Let's not forget that the nice fellow who accused Macleans is none other than Mohamed Elmasry - president of the Islamic National Congress. On the Michael Coren show, Mr. Elmasry eloquently stated that anyone 18 years or older, male or female, in uniform or not - are valid targets for Palestinian terrorists.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[sharkman]

Yeah, and they don't tribune his ass for saying things like that, but it's open season on those who are critical of Muslim problems in society.

[White Doors]

Nothing.

How do you figure that?

[guyser]

How do you figure that?

Staff lawyers.

[White Doors]

Staff lawyers.

ummm.. So?

You think the costs are the same wether the are active in litigations or not?

seriously?

[guyser]

ummm.. So?

You think the costs are the same wether the are active in litigations or not?

seriously?

Yup

Paid to deal with this stuff all the time.

[White Doors]

you obviously have never retained the services of a lawyer. lol

[guyser]

you obviously have never retained the services of a lawyer. lol

You really shouldnt laugh, especially when you are wrong.

Why yes I have retained a lawyer before. Is there a point in that?

Macleans has lawyers on staff , meaning they get a paycheque every week for doing Macleans legal work, inlcuding this.

Just like insurance companies have lawyers, so do publishers of sufficient size and Macleans is one of them.

[Wild Bill]

You really shouldnt laugh, especially when you are wrong.

Why yes I have retained a lawyer before. Is there a point in that?

Macleans has lawyers on staff , meaning they get a paycheque every week for doing Macleans legal work, inlcuding this.

Just like insurance companies have lawyers, so do publishers of sufficient size and Macleans is one of them.

Must be some retainer! I've never heard of a company lawyer that would work for a flat salary. He could make so much more money charging for billable hours instead.

Now, a retainer might keep him "on call", as it were. I would expect that such a retainer would be relatively modest with the understanding that it only covered a maximum number of hours. Anything over that would be charged at the lawyer's normal hourly rate.

I could be wrong. Perhaps someone with true experience, like FTA, would chime in. It just seems to be that with your example we would have either a company paying an exorbitant salary for an on-staff lawyer(s) or even more odd, lawyers that would work for free!

Even if Macleans has a staff legal department I'm sure that they only have a core staff for day-to-day affairs and hire out when something requires more resources. The alternative would be to have a lot of extra lawyers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing, just in case something big came up.

But hey, I'm just guessing! Maybe big business has so much money they pay lawyers big bucks just for their corporate image. Like I said, perhaps someone with more experience can tell us the way it really is.

[M.Dancer]

Must be some retainer! I've never heard of a company lawyer that would work for a flat salary. He could make so much more money charging for billable hours instead.

Actually many large companies have legal council on staff and are paid a comeptitive salary. Listed companies either use an existing firm like, say Gowlings or if they a large enough and the billable hours would be extreme they will have a corporate counsel on staff. The TSX has a legal department that vets every piece of communication that leaves the place as well as usual contracts and labour issues. I don't think the G&M have inhouse counsel, but Torsar does as well as Rogers....

A fellow I know who used to work for BLG left to seek corporate work precisely because the nillable hours were sucking the joy of life right our of him. Not everyone wants the Forest Hill McMansion or the 75 hour work weeks it takes to earn it.

[M.Dancer]

Even if Macleans has a staff legal department I'm sure that they only have a core staff for day-to-day affairs and hire out when something requires more resources. The alternative would be to have a lot of extra lawyers sitting around getting paid for doing nothing, just in case something big came up.

Macleans doersn't have a legal staff per se, Rogers does and you can bet they don't sit around doing nothing...with well over 50 magazines in thier fold...

[guyser]

Must be some retainer! I've never heard of a company lawyer that would work for a flat salary. He could make so much more money charging for billable hours instead.

Like I said, perhaps someone with more experience can tell us the way it really is.

I work in insurance. I deal with staff lawyers all the time, and in fact did so this morning on a nonsense liability suit.

As dancer opined correctly, it is Rogers and they have them.

My correction would be extraordinary suits , for that they probably call in experts. I seriously doubt this would be one of those cases.

[M.Dancer]

I work in insurance. I deal with staff lawyers all the time, and in fact did so this morning on a nonsense liability suit.

As dancer opined correctly, it is Rogers and they have them.

My correction would be extraordinary suits , for that they probably call in experts. I seriously doubt this would be one of those cases.

I worked for the Financial Times of Canada back when Mulruney was threatening to sue anybody and everybody if they quoted contentious passages from Gratton's book. There were lawyers coming and going...most were Southam's but there were a couple of hired guns becuase of who the possible plaintiff was.

They published the passgaes anyway.