Mark Steyn writes:
Awan’s preposterous position at this trial is that, while he was the “complainant” (plaintiff) in Ontario, he had nothing to do with the “complainants” in British Columbia – even though both complaints were filed on the same day and are all but identical. Apparently, that’s just a coincidence. The reality is that, under this evil and squalid system, legal terms such as “judge”, “plaintiff”, “counsel”, “witness”, “client” no longer have any precise definition. Which is how Khurrum Awan wound up in a BC courthouse wearing an array of de facto hats as plaintiff, witness and lawyer. Now he’s suing Ezra Levant for pointing out the obvious. Awan says he was only a witness in BC. But he wrote the complaint to the BC “Human Rights” Tribunal – which makes him a co-counsel. And he filed an identical complaint to the Ontario commission – which makes him a co-plaintiff. And he sat at the plaintiff’s table in court (supposedly because the public gallery was full) and assisted the legal team with their case (supposedly because they were having difficulty stapling documents).
And that’s before you throw in his absurd threatening letter to cabinet minister Jason Kenney in which Awan claims to be the “driving force” behind all three “human rights” complaints — to the Ontario, BC and Canadian commissions.
Steyn also talks about how Lou Pelletier’s violation of a judge’s gag order finally got the results that father was looking for.
I’ve said it before: Mark Steyn would have made a great punk. The matter of his well-known taste in music aside, we’d definitely have to buzz cut his unspikable curly hair.
