To be honest, there isn’t much more to write about. I will if possible attend the closing arguments on April 7 after which I doubt that we’ll see a decision until July. There were no bombshells yesterday, just as there were none throughout the trial, it was just some minor housekeeping and clarifications.
It all depends on the judge at this point save for whatever may be said on the 7th, though I doubt that will make make much if any difference. I expect a win for Awan, not because his side was argued better or his case was stronger but simply because the law is an Ass. I did not find Awan impressive on the stand, his testimony and his lawyers efforts strained credibility at times. Youth Leader for but not a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress – Why heavens it’s how things have been done in Upper Canada since time immemorial! Accept personal responsibility for the series of press releases Op-Eds etc that pushed the “Mutually Acceptable Author” canard and bore Awan’s own name? Tut Tut! A mere oversight!
Mohammed el-Masry a Jew hating nutter? The CIC supported Hamas and Hezbollah? Never heard of it! As Youth Leader Awan’s purpose was to create awareness and develop engagement in the political process. In such a capacity he would not be privy to knowledge of the CIC’s public positions on such political matters. To imply otherwise amounts to a hurtful accusation unworthy of a courtroom! Would you suggest Awan have read another gentleman’s mail Sir! Or even scan the weekly newsletter or press releases in which these positions were broadcast? Even once in awhile? Unheard Of! As Youth Leader, well up to speed on current events, Mr. Awan made it his business to know absolutely nothing about the organization, making him the very model of discretion. Or so Awan’s counsel would have you believe.
I suspect it will all come down to where Awan sat during the Macleans/Steyn BCHRT hearing and he will win this case by the seat of his pants. I am not being facetious, much verbiage was devoted to this very topic. Unfortunately no forensic technique exists to link Awan’s pants to a specific chair at a specific time for a specific duration. The Chair was never called as a witness, hostile or otherwise. Rumours persist that this was the result of Mike Harris cutbacks to the court translator program. The rump of the argument is whether Mr. Awan was a party to the BCHRT complaint. Did he serve as both witness and co-counsel in that hearing creating a conflict of interest? Did he have a hand in authoring the complaint? It means nothing that the complaints to the BCHRT, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the CHRC were virtual carbon copies of one another. Just as it means nothing that the Socks declared they would seek remedy through the human rights commissions at their initial shakedown meeting with Macleans when their odious demands went unmet. Just as Awan’s public performance as point-man throughout the entire farce means nothing. Nothing at all. Bear in mind that the judge need only find against Ezra on one claim.
At one point Ezra accused Shiller of engaging in Pettifoggery. Libel is law is just like that, the petty quibbling artifact of a bygone era fit only for display at the Mausoleum of Human Rights or consignment to some dusty cabinet in a forgotten corner of some law school.