On holidays as I am, I imagine that I’ll either be sleeping, or on a bus to Edmonton when it happens ( or sleeping on a bus to Edmonton, for that matter ), and so I thought I’d ask the question that, well, I think we’re all just dying to ask about Anthanasios Hadjis’ and Co. final decision on the Warman v. Lemire hearing, to be released tomorrow morning in all its, well, glory, I suppose.
Glory may be rather an over-statement, particularly considering the depths of trouble that Hadjis and Co. went to, to ensure that the hearing itself didn’t even register on the smallest of media screens. And particularly considering the odiously momentous potential that comes as a consequence of the Warman v. Lemire hearing to begin with.
But, glory it is, because, odious or not, the hearing happened, and it happened with gusto, and a half-dozen CHRC poseurs, well, they didn’t have such a great time of it, nor did Richard Warman… But undoubtedly somebody had a glorious time: perhaps Marc Lemire himself, although I would imagine being present before that particular Tribunal didn’t strike him as a moment to shine at the time – there’s nothing shiny about those particular proceedings.
I had a question, though, didn’t I? Well, it’s more of a lengthy statement. As Stephen Boissoin is hoping to do in the West, perhaps Marc Lemire will have paved the way for in the East: namely, only getting away from a Human Rights Tribunal grievance-mongering case. If Marc gets off, one can’t help but wonder if that will help Stephen’s case later this month, at the Court of Queen’s Bench, Alberta.
Indeed, as Marc Lemire does, perhaps Ontario will go. After all, if Marc is able to take his constitutional challenge of the Canadian Human Rights Act’s Section 13(1), it may perhaps embolden Tim Hudak of the Ontario PCP to put the pressure on Ontario’s own particular HRA to make similar changes. Not that such an action will have any guarantees attached to it – but after the disastrous results of Lindsey Blackett’s proposed reforms, anything would be progress.
Ah, but no decision yet. And really, does Anthanasios Hadjis really want that noise? Marc Lemire, only bigger, badder, and all over the place. Jennifer Lynch certainly doesn’t want that, as the neo-nazi impersonators that she so whole-heartedly denies employing probably wouldn’t have such a great time under any kind of scrutiny as a constitutional challenge implies.
Needless to say, I hope the decision goes in Marc Lemire’s favor. And really, previous decisions have seemed to trend in that direction…so long as the plaintiffs have been relatively high profile, or backed with enough scrutineering bloggers and enterprising columnists. Ezra Levant was let go. Macleans/Mark Steyn were let go. And other worst-case scenarios, well, they haven’t really been as bad as thought: for example, my own attempts to find Jennifer Lynch’s ‘enemies list’, which so far hasn’t shown itself ( although I still maintain hope, otherwise I’m going to have to change the ‘About’ section of this blog, and that’s a major inconvenience, y’all ).
The ones without the attention behind them, of course, haven’t received such charitable treatment. Stephen Boissoin, for instance. So the question, when it comes to Marc Lemire, is: is he like Stephen Boissoin, or is he like Macleans magazine? I tend to think that he’s somewhere in the middle, if only for the momentousness of his ambitions, but personally, to Marc Lemire, he’ll still feel a good brunt of things, even if he is let off. After all, he still has his legal bills. He still has the stigma of being a hate criminal in this country – the OJ of the blogging community, only without the subsequent robberies, really.
Even if he wins, he loses. And if he loses, he still loses, and everybody else loses, and the CHRT loses, too – they lost the instant that they took his trial to tribunal. Richard Warman lost. Dean Steacy lost. Jennifer Lynch lost.
Nobody won. Now it’s just time to see how bad we as a country have lost. This can still be salvaged, if only partially. All that it depends upon is the decision of a tribunal that, during this whole matter, has made bad decisions: media opaqueness, altered, delayed transcripts. Now a decision, hopefully good.
That’s quite a precedent there.