Happy Presidents Day to all our American readers. We'll have Part Two of our Song of the Week presidential special a little later today. You can hear Part One here.
~For reasons I don't quite get, over the weekend Canada's National Post posted the following clip from an interview with me a couple of years back. Nevertheless, you might find it of interest:
The National Post celebrates its twentieth anniversary later this year. It was the great journalistic adventure of my life, and I'm slightly stunned it's still here, given that it was launched just before the entire industry began its death throes.
~Those of us involved in the west's free speech battles have long been familiar with the curious phenomenon, post-9/11, by which the state is less agitated by Islamic supremacism than by those who point it out. As I wrote during one of the Dutch Government's many shameful prosecutions of Geert Wilders:
In the Low Countries, whenever anyone seeks to discuss Islam outside the very narrow bounds of multicultural political discourse, they wind up either banned (Belgium's Vlaams Blok), forced into exile (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) or killed (Pim Fortuyn).
It's remarkable how speedily "the most tolerant country in Europe," in a peculiarly repellent strain of coercive appeasement, has adopted "shoot the messenger" as an all-purpose cure-all for "Islamophobia."
This peculiar psychosis has now advanced from the free-speech wars to actual, literal war. Consider the case of Jim Matthews:
A Brit who fought with Kurdish militia against Islamic State was cheered by supporters as he appeared in court charged with a terror offence.
Got that? If you're a British subject who signed up to fight for Isis and then returns to the UK, the government will turn a blind eye, except for offering insipid bromides about social services outreach to help you integrate "back" into society. But, if you take up arms against Isis, you'll be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. Matthews' sister Abby Stapleton:
Jim Matthews, charged yesterday under the Terrorism Act for fighting against #Daesh, is my brother and I could not be more proud of him. This cynical prosecution is emblematic of this government's contempt for social conscience and human rights. Shame on you @cpsuk
"Cynical" is right. The UK Isis brigades took up arms with the Queen's enemies - which is what we used to call treason. Instead, it's the guy who took up arms against the Queen's enemies who's being prosecuted.
~Following last week's note on the glacial progress of the eternally impending Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, readers may be interested to hear about my compatriot Tim Ball, who's also being sued by Michael E Mann - essentially for reprising the beloved old chestnut about how so-and-so should be in the state pen rather than at Penn State, and applying it to Dr Fraudpants. However, Dr Ball also attracted the ire of Andrew Weaver, leader of the British Columbia Green Party. I'm happy to say that Weaver's suit has been dismissed by the BC Superior Court, in a fabulously sane and clear judgment that would be all but inconceivable from the torpid meretricious sophists infesting the DC bench. The Honourable Mr Justice Skolrood writes:
[73] These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver's professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball's intent. Why else would he include a description of Dr. Weaver's allegedly paranoid behaviour at the meeting in Dr. Weaver's office, given that it has no direct relevance to the central thesis of the Article..?
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff's actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been "saddened, sickened and dismayed" by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed...
[79] The issue of climate change is a matter of public interest and, as noted, Dr. Weaver has been at the forefront of public discussion. It has long been recognized that where someone enters the public arena, it is to be expected that his or her actions and words will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism.
This is all so fantastically normal that after six years in the dank toilet of DC "justice" I cannot believe an actual judge wrote it. But he did. And that's even more remarkable when you consider that the plaintiff, Andrew Weaver, is such a serial litigant that the main case law cited by Mr Justice Skolrood is something called "Weaver v. Corcoran" - as in my old National Post comrade Terence of that ilk. As the indispensable Stephen McIntyre writes:
This bodes ill for both Mann and Weaver's other vanity lawsuits in B.C.
He adds:
Judge also made sensible comments that libel law "is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points". Michael Mann should take note.
Eli Rabett, responding to Mr McIntyre, clutches desperately at the thinnest straws:
Judge also said that Ball was either an idiot or a liar: "Further, despite Dr. Ball's history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball's part, if not an indifference to the truth."
Mr Rabett, like many climate fetishists, is missing the point. What matters in a legal action is the final score: who wins and who loses. In this case, Ball wins and Weaver loses - to whit:
[85] Dr. Weaver's claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
And in Canada, like almost every non-US court in what Jeff Sessions calls the "Anglo-American" system, the loser pays. But Rabett is also missing the point in a larger sense: Yes, Mr Justice Skolrood did not care for Dr Ball's column, but so what? He's actually, and in the most practical sense, bolstering his takeaway - that, even if you disagree with the piece and think it's rubbish, it's still not a matter for the courts, no matter how convincingly you roll your eyes, rend your garments and fall wailing to the ground professing to be "saddened, sickened and dismayed".
That's all the original DC trial judge, the incompetent Natalia Combs Greene, had to say: Personally, I think Steyn's full of crap, but so what? Suck it up, Mannboy. Or to put it more judiciously:
[79] The issue of climate change is a matter of public interest and, as noted, Dr. Weaver has been at the forefront of public discussion. It has long been recognized that where someone enters the public arena, it is to be expected that his or her actions and words will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism.
Sad that it takes a court to state what ought to be obvious in a free society.
~Programming note: Tonight, Presidents Day, I'll be live with Tucker Carlson, coast to coast across America on Fox News at 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific, with a rerun at midnight Eastern. We hope you'll tune in if you're in the presence of the receiving apparatus.
If you prefer me in non-vision, I'll be here a couple of hours ahead of Tucker with Part Four of our latest audio adventure, The Thirty-Nine Steps. Tales for Our Time and much of our other content is supported by members of The Mark Steyn Club, for which we're profoundly grateful, given our Mann vs Steyn legal bills. We have fun in the Club, not least in our Clubland Q&As , the latest of which airs live around the planet tomorrow, Tuesday, at 4pm US Eastern - that's 9pm GMT. If you'd like to join us and shoot me a question, you'll find more details here. Or, if you're personally antipathetic to me but the lady next door's quite partial, why not sign her up for a Gift Membership, or treat her to a SteynOnline gift certificate?
