Liveblogging the BC Human Righ...

So we are in, and almost ready to go. As trials of the century/year/week go, this one is decidedly down-market: the courtroom would make a good walk-in closet. Maclean?s legal team is out in force, a phalanx of half a dozen suits. The opposing counsel, by contrast, is one suit and two or three badly-dressed juniors. If I didn?t know the stakes, I?d be rooting for them. Actually I am rooting for them, in a strange sort of way. Don?t tell my employers, but I?m sort of hoping we lose this case. If we win—that is, if the tribunal finds we did not, by publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn?s book, expose Muslims to hatred and contempt, or whatever the legalese is—then the whole clanking business rolls on, the stronger for having shown how ?reasonable? it can be. Whereas if we lose, and fight on appeal, and challenge the whole legal basis for these inquisitions, then something important will be achieved. Hang on, we?re starting?

9:45 AM PST
The Chair is reviewing the legal history of the complaint. Apparently they have no jurisdiction over the Maclean?s website. So that?s a relief?

9:48 AM
We have friends: the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists are here as intervenors.

9:54 AM
Lawyers for the two sides are wrangling now over what witnesses the complainants are going to call, and whether ?my friend? had properly informed ?my friend? as to what ?my friend? (the first one) had planned?

9:56 AM
The three member-panel has entered, chaired by Heather MacNaughton. She hasn?t gotten six words out before one of the spectators shouts out, ?could you speak up please?? To her credit, she takes it in stride?

10:07 AM
Lead counsel for the complainants (i.e., Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress) is Faisal Joseph. Leading off for Maclean?s is Roger McConchie, a BC human rights lawyer; Julian Porter will be coming on later to do the cross-examinations?

10:18 AM
They?re going to call, among others, Dr. Andrew Rippon, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Victoria, to show that Steyn has misunderstood the relationship between the Koran and Islamic society. Well, that?s as may be. Would be a good subject for debate. But why exactly does that require the state to adjudicate it?

Okay, I could probably make that point after every line. Not saying I won?t?

10:19 AM
Section 7.1... of the BC Human Rights Code is the relevant legal text, prohibiting exposure to hate.

Free speech, in Joseph?s humble submission, is a ?red herring.?

10:20 AM
?Proceedings before the human rights tribunal are considerably less formal than before a court,? the chair advises. Yes, indeed: unburdened by stuffy old rules of evidence, for example?

10:26 AM
Oh God: they?re talking about who they?ll be call