Back when this story broke, I was rather surprised at the speed at which the bloggers were able to get the story out on the blogosphere. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given the technology these days, but nonetheless it was surprising and encouraging at the same time. I was also impressed with their abilities to pick up on the major points and disseminate accordingly.
One of those bloggers was Jaeger from Small Dead Animals. I found this paragraph rather amusing since I am the one she identifies below as the fellow who “clearly stands out”.
Looking around the gallery, I notice Mark Steyn sitting in the front row at the right, listening intently, and there are at least twenty other people, some of whom are bored to the point of nodding off. It seems odd to come and watch if you’re not actually interested in the proceedings. Perhaps they are journalists or are associated with the perpetually offended complaint-generating organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress.
Another fellow in the gallery clearly stands out. While the rest of us are sitting orderly in rows, one guy has assembled four or five chairs in a circle with a laptop in front and a smattering of other possessions scattered around him. He is listening intently and hammering in notes on his laptop. I identify him immediately as a blogger. (Small Dead Animals)
While I did have a few things on the go, including my audio recorder and laptop, I am by no means a pro at this sort of stuff. I don’t type particularly quickly and, judging by everyone else’s success in getting the detailed information out and picking up on the important points, I can also claim to be rather slow at processing too!
Not exactly a ego builder, let’s just say.
During one of the breaks, I had a chance to wander over and talk to Mark Steyn. As we were talking about some of the testimony, he happened to mention in passing the virtual “double-sided fax” that Steacy had referred to in his testimony. Mark was looking rather amused by Steacy’s testimony about it because it made the Commission look rather foolish. I kind of nodded in a familiar way, so as to look semi-coherent, but I was thinking: what double-sided fax? I didn’t hear about any double-sided fax! Then I remembered…that’s why Mark Steyn is Mark Steyn and I’m not. But I vowed to find out what he was talking about when I reviewed the audio of the hearing again.
In this audio clip, you will hear Lemire’s lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka, question CHRC Investigator, Dean Steacy, about the complaint Marc Lemire sent in to the CHRC regarding some rather objectionable speech by the RCMP, Peel Regional Police, and various media outlets.
Steacy is caught in so many contradictions regarding this question that it is necessary to isolate each one independently so the full extent of amazement can be truly appreciated.
In this particular clip, Steacy claims that Lemire’s complaint was rejected because the Commission does not accept complaints on double-sided paper (i.e. text on both sides of the paper). The contradiction is not so much that Marc Lemire had faxed in his complaint as he claims, but that Steacy actually refers to the fax in his testimony above (50 second mark in the clip)! But if Lemire’s complaint was indeed faxed in (i.e. a single-sided transmission), as Steacy even admits, then how could his complaint have been dismissed?
Does the Canadian Human Rights Commission have a double-sided fax machine to accept double-sided faxes that it must later reject because it does not meet the administrative filing criteria of a single-sided fax?
I have never heard of a double-sided fax machine, have you? Although the way they are ripping off internet connections these days, it would not surprise me if they invented one.
Maybe the CHRC had one specially built for complainants they don’t like. That way, when they receive the double-sided fax from an “undesireable”, they can reject the complaint because it does not meet S. 41 of the CHRA about proper single-sided formatting!