Monday, March 29, 2010

Should I Attend the Guy Earle Trial Tomorrow?


An editorial by blog writer BulletproofCourier

After witnessing Guy Earle's lawyer James Millar walking out of today's BC Human Rights Tribunal hearing in protest of an illegal proceeding...



...I find myself asking: Should I attend the Guy Earle trial tomorrow? Sure, I might have the next couple days free, but is it worth my time?

Reason not to attend:

Guy Earle's lawyer, James Millar, is right to walk out on the Tribunal: this hearing is an illegal proceeding that violates the basic tenets of Canadian law. Why lend it legitimacy by even being in the room?

Reason to attend:

Canadians need to be aware of how the BC Human Rights Tribunal operates, right or wrong. Especially if it's wrong.

Reason not to attend:

Tribunal chair "Mumbling Murray" is unpleasant, sometimes infuriating to watch. He behaves like a learning-disabled government robot: A low-talker, too busy typing into his laptop computer to make eye contact with anyone speaking to "him", the Tribunal. He just sits there typing (presumably a trial transcript, as he has no assistant, and the BCHRT isn't recording this hearing. WTF?) and not engaging his reasoning faculties. No spark in his eye, no variation in voice level, devoid of levity: Mumbling Murray rules the room like a corpse.

It seems like this case is already decided, and his job is to poker-face the hearing into a winning hand for the BCHRT. Seriously! Everyone in the room could smell it, even the seasoned reporters were heard snickering and muttering "oh my god" at the patent stupidity of some of Geiger-Adams' statements during today's hearing.

Reason to attend:

Gather more evidence for above hypothesis? I don't know, maybe you can tell me.


10 comments:

  1. I think you should attend because I doubt i can make it. I tried to give you a call a while ago, not sure if it was the right #, with your cryptic message!! truepeers@gmail.com

    I agree that it is disconcerting to watch him constantly typing away, eyes on his computer screen. They don't tape the hearings and so don't produce any transcripts - why is that, what are they scared of? higher courts giving their procedures more scrutiny? Anyway, as a result, the "panel" doesn't seem to be giving full attention to the witness. He may hear all the words - though this afternoon he asked a question which showed he hadn't heard something - but he doesn't have much attention free to judge the body language and reflect on what he is hearing and seeing in order to develop thoughts about credibility of the witness.

    Not an impressive process.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been following these Human "Rights" travesties for some time now and actually got an opportunity to sit in this afternoon (Monday March 29th)for a bit. I say for a bit because I came in just as the Guy Earle Youtube piece was being played and then heard Pardy give evidence about how she felt about having to listen to it. I say a bit because after being in there for a while I started to feel dirty and had to leave. I felt like I was somehow giving the proceeding legitimacy and I couldn't continue listen to Pardy complain. Earles' version via "youtube" has the ring of truth. He didn't sugarcoat his conduct and it's hard to believe he would react the way he did to "a kiss on the cheek" and 1 1/2 Coronas. But giving Pardy ALL the benefit of the doubt and accepting her version entirely, it still doesn't make her complaint right. No real Human Right was violated. I have little doubt Her "PTSD" was brought about not by the events that evening but what followed as a result of her spurious complaint. She has been deservedly ridiculed, not because of anything Earle said to her but because of her subsequent complaint. He said some profane things to her and she (or her friend) threw her drink in his face (twice). That should have been the end of the story. It's a story now, more than 1 1/2 years later because Pardy decided to make it a story.I wouldn't go back. I predict an "acquittal" simply because the BCHRT will want to avoid a Judicial Review where they know they will get slammed by the Supreme Court. They will have accomplished their task by dragging Mr. Earle through the process for the last year and a half doing great damage to his reputation and livelyhood. The process is the punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ditto Blazing Cat Fur in all caps!

    Go, please, please go. For those of us stuck here in bloody Ontario and other parts of the country who can't be there.

    Thank you so much for doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. please go. this is the first real perspective on this waste of time i've read.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please go. We can't let miscarriages of justice go on behind closed doors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the positive feedback folks. With the heavy media focus of yesterday, it appears interest in the case has redoubled and I couldn't get a hearing seat this morning although I arrived earlier than yesterday. :(

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do hope you can make it in on Wednesday. We need all the front line reporting possible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Think about it this way: if you stop attending now, setting up a blog to document the entire affair was kind of a waste.

    (By the by, I'll have coverage of a Dr Darren Lund speech at the University of Alberta on Examiner.com on Friday. Sorry for the shameless plug, but I thought y'all might be interested.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Day 3 - I'm heading downtown really early, will hopefully get a seat today.

    ReplyDelete