But whatever the case, this really tells you how low journalistic standards have sunk at The Post. They've essentially let themselves get played by Nazis! What's next? Successfully burgled by a gang of retarded chipmunks?
Meanwhile the lads at Stormfront are conflicted! For Kay said:
As I’ve written before, this would not be so much a problem if their various speech codes were used merely to prosecute men such as David Ahenakew, Ernst Zundel, Jim Keegstra and the like. But in the post-9/11 era, radical anti-racists are also agitating to shut up sensible people saying sensible things about the war against militant Islam, the defining global struggle of our era.
Canadian Nazi Paul Fromm doesn't like that. Why are Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn considered sensible, while he is not? Nevertheless, overall he approves of Kay's sentiments, writing: Well, we take our allies where we can find them.
They'll want to hear that over at the Natty Post!
Update: At Ezra's place, Kay writes:
Ezra -- I took the post down when a more intelligent colleague of mine gave me some background about who Bernard Klatt is. Whatever Klatt may know about electronic sleuthing and the like, I didn't feel comfortable citing his affidavit as a source, even if all of the technical details in it are correct.
There you have it, folks! The Post's comments editor doesn't know how to employ teh Googles!
42 comments:
When you step back from this, you do realise that this is overwhelmingly a problem with crappy media, particularly of the type peddled by The National Post. Jonathan Kay's understanding of journalistic good practice doesn't seem to be any more sophisticated than your average, unpaid blogger, particularly of The Blogging Tory type. I'm not sure Kay would be able or willing to explain this:
Canadian Nazi Paul Fromm doesn't like that. Why are Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn considered sensible, while he is not?
Anyway, I'm amazed how far up the media food chain this has gone (about which I'm pleased, considering Kay...the Free Speech Amazon...had to 'disappear' the post, a move that pretty much says everything you need to know about these raging mediocrities). The National Post truly is a shitty little rag.
Just an added remark...It's posts like this that go a long way to expose the character of the people who are so exercised about this issue.
I never realised just how vindictive Ezra Levant was. It's not enough for him to go after the individual who he believes subjected him to a baseless complaint; he now seems to be reveling in whatever professional hardship this has caused someone who was just doing her job, which he's taken to the point of encouraging character assassination and public humiliation and who knows what else?
I don't understand exactly what kind of support he thinks he's building up here. The law is his target and he, a lawyer, should understand how laws are changed in this country. They're not changed to provide legal cover for the actions of immoral people.
In any case, it's been useful, in this whole exercise, to discover just what kind of person Ezra Levant is. I used to think he was just obnoxious. Now I know he's a real son of a bitch.
I never realised just how vindictive Ezra Levant was.
It goes far deeper than LeRant.
A dedicated public servant makes an unforeseen appearance on You Tube and bails.
When you turn on the lights the cockroaches run.
Bye!
Cockroach.
Jay would have made a fine Hutu.
Gah. Now you've got real, executive-class nazis showing up here, BCL.
I wouldn't have even bothered with the link to Stormfront, BCL. They don't deserve the publicity.
Well I have a Holocaust "revisionist" posting comments on my (running) blog regarding a non-running post I put up that named him. (He is being featured at the Vancouver Public Library as part of "freedom to read" week.) We're being very polite.
And good riddance.
One of the best methods of destroying institutions like the HRCs is to force them to operate in full public scrutiny. A video camera in the Hearing Room evens the odds and the sure knowledge that the video will be up on You Tube keeps the process fair.
People, like Ms. McGovern don't like operating in public. So she left. Like, and I realize this will be a little tough for Robbie and Ti-Guy to grasp, the metaphorical cockroach exposed to light.
There is going to be a lot more light shed and, I suspect, a good deal more scuttling.
And, Ti-guy and BCL, why don't you post under your actual names?
Jay, my real name is in the top right corner of the webpage. Learn to read, pea brain.
Let's see what would happen if there were a Pro-Life parade, or a White Heritage rally at city hall, or maybe even a proposal for a Scandinavian-only school. Or even just try to say a prayer at a public meeting - see how fast the Thought-Police jump down your throat.
The best way to deflect attention from your own faults is to attribute them (falsely) to your enemies instead. You leftards wrote the book on it.
One of the best methods of destroying institutions like the HRCs
Bwah! You rubes have been flailing away at our institutions for decades to no avail. What makes you think that you'll be any more successful in this latest wankfest?
I realize this will be a little tough for Robbie and Ti-Guy to grasp, the metaphorical cockroach exposed to light.
The Tutsis didn't understand it either.
According to Ezra's post linked above, the employee in question is only no longer working on Ezra's file, and has not quit altogether. I dislike the idea that people can bully and tantrum their way into getting a new investigator, but the commission probably knows how to best run itself.
It would be a shame to see Ms. McGovern leave her job, as she is obviously good at it. Remember, very little of what Ezra says in his interview is actually relevant. Yes, some of it may be interesting as policy discussion. But they are there to discuss whether he breached the Act, not to decide if the Act is a good idea or if he supports it.
McGovern takes notes where levant says relevant things, and calmly puts her pen down when he begins frothing at the mouth. she makes no sudden movements, she does not attempt to engage the crazy man. She handles herself in an exemplary manner, and we should be proud to have more civil servants like her.
I suspect Ms. McGovern recused herself from the file because she has some integrity - unlike the person sitting across from her.
Having unwillingly become part of the story my guess is that she thought she may no longer be able to provide an unbiased assessment of the complaint - or that people might reasonably apprehend bias - so she did what any official with a duty to fairness should do and left the file.
It also would leave her free to commence legal action and/or a complaint to the law society against Levant.
If Warman has so clearly been framed, why haven’t we heard from him? After all, he has in the past sued for far less.
At Dawg’s I quoted Lord Denning, the eminent British jurist – “innocence begs the chance to speak”. If this were no more than a beat-up by wicked Nazis, we would by now be begging Roaring Lucy to shut up.
I suggested at Jay’s that he will keep his head down, make occasional growling noises (via Kinsella), and wait for it to blow over. Just the reaction one would expect from a blustering liar caught in the act.
I am amazed by my own prescience.
I understand why the National Post took down the article given the source cited. But I wonder if any of the chest-thrust-out decriers of Levant and Steyn have any opinion at all on what is - afaik - undisputed:
Someone using the same IP / browser combo as Warman has admitted using posted the Cools commment.
Warman and the HRC do not want the IP logs of Rogers brought into evidence (something which would have no material impact if Warman is not the poster).
Warman has admitted using a pseudonym to post on message boards (the infamous 'Lucy').
Posting as an alter ego is apparently common course for the HRCs investigators as has been also admitted previously.
Given the above - all undisputed to my knowledge - what are the odds that someone other than Warman made the Cools post? I understand why you might not publish the claim without further confirmation but - really - does anyone here - including his staunchest defenders - REALLY think Warman DIDN'T post it? Anyone?
Re: ti-guy:
"...someone who was just doing her job"? Hmm - where have I heard that before?
anonymous. There are several questions about that evidence. One of them is where the logs came from on which the whole argument is all based. As far as I can see the logs all come from Lamire, and (as Klatt admits during the cross-examination) there is no way that he could tell whether they'd been tampered with. One way or the other, however, I suspect that we'll be hearing more about this.
buckets, don’t you think we should have heard something by now?
While LeMire and Klatt would be more enthusiastic than most in their desire to nail Warman, they are hardly likely to knowingly put their heads in the noose of litigation, given this guy's track record. If they are smart enough to pull off a stunt like that, they are smart enough to realize the legal implications.
Given that Warman only confessed to ‘lucy’ when cornered, any objective observer would draw the obvious conclusion over his continued silence re ‘90sareover’.
sholto douglas. Perhaps. But in order for Warman to successfully sue Lamire over this, he'd have to prove that the logs were tampered with, and that's not something that would be easy to do. In my opinion, an objective observer would want more evidence.
Anon 6:06,
As I understand it, the origonal Rogers logs are gone. I've heard that from a number of people.
Also, as I have written about earlier, there is quite a bit of evidence that the IP Warman used was for a computer being used a proxy server in 2003-04. Certainly, you can find other people who are not Warman posting to various forums in various places from the same IP both before and after he was supposed to have that IP. SO yeah I think there is plenty reason to doubt he's the guy.
I think you should also realize, that the evidence Klatt has brought forward was brought forward on earlier occasions and discarded by the HRC in question. His problems as a witness go well beyond just being a Nazi.
buckets, what there is now is a strong circumstantial case. One of the challenges which Lucy Warman would have to deal with is how to sue without opening himself up to discovery in a big way. And this is especially true as Lucy will know whether or not he posted the particular message.
At the moment his silence speaks volumes.
buckets, what I don’t know about Canadian law could fill libraries, but I think in libel cases there is less presumption of innocence. There would be more onus on LeMire to defend his evidence, and less on Warman to dismantle it. Nbob, could you enlighten us?
If, as Anonymous said, Warman/HRC have tried to suppress the release of Rogers’ logs (as opposed to their being deleted), their case starts to smell like a ten day corpse.
Have Rogers said anything yet?
Jay. I think that you may be right about Warman's thinking here -- that suing would open up enough avenues of discovery for Lamire (say) that it wouldn't be worth doing. Whether that is because such discovery would show that he is Lucy or something else is something that is fun to speculate about, but ultimately nothing that I would want to bet my house on. I don't follow Warman closely, but it seems to me that he cares less about winning in the court of public opinion than winning in court. And his choice about what to pursue in court is more about harassing extremists than about securing 'justice' for himself.
Douglas. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that Warman can sue Lamire over Klatt's testimony (which seems to be the source for all this). Now, if Lamire were to provide tampered evidence, he could be prosecuted (one assumes) for obstruction of justice (etc.), but here we get back to whether this could be proven.
buckets, you wouldn’t bet your house on this speculation. Understandable, but why would LeMire and Klatt? Given that it is not in their interest to lie, but it is very much in Warman’s to do so, you know where this is going….
The real issue is those logs. If Rogers have destroyed them, it probably means that Warman has had an undeservedly lucky escape.
Finally the danger of his kind ‘harassing extremists’ is that he, abetted by similarly zealous HRCs, can define the word extremist. As we have seen, it can become anyone with whom he or the leftist activists in the HRCs disagree.
"Understandable, but why would LeMire and Klatt? Given that it is not in their interest to lie, but it is very much in Warman’s to do so, you know where this is going…."
Actually, Klatt's testimony was in a case Warman brought against Lemire,and was in defense of Lamire. The final decision essentially said that whether Warman wrote the posts in question was irrelevant to that complaint, and suggested that if he did Lemire could always file a complaint against Warman. I think this indeed did happen, but nothing has come of it.
In any case, it was NOT in Warman's interest to lie. What he said re this issue was deemed to be irrelevant to the complaint.
Whereas Lemire thought the issue was relevant to his guilt or innocence of the charges. Lots of reason to lie there.
Plus, lets face it, if your life path leads you towards Nazism you can't be expected to be rational or act intelligently.
douglas. Klatt, in this case, doesn't risk much criminal liability as far as I can see. His testimony can be presented as his honest opinion about the logs that he was given. Even if we could prove his analysis wrong, that falls a long way short of perjury.
What is Lamire's risk? Let's just say for the sake of argument that someone tampered with a log in such a case. Presumably if you were knowledgeable enough to know how to fix the log, you'd also know how likely it was that you could be caught. And unless I'm mistaken, the tampering could not be proven without Rogers logs … and they're long gone.
'Not in their interest to lie'? I don't know about that. Lamire surely sees Warman as an enemy of his 'cause', no?
(I'm afraid I'll be unable to continue this discussion for a couple days. Keep well.)
BCL, you say the ‘90sareover’ issue was brought up in connection with another case (I was actually unaware of this, many kilometers separating me from all this), and it might have indeed been irrelevant to that case. Far be it from me to defend LeMire.
However the fact that Warman and Steacy (his sidekick at the CHRC) stoop to these tactics is very relevant to their general credibility. How convenient that the HRC came to rule on a matter in which its own staff were implicated.
There is great incentive for Warman to pursue this if he never was ‘90sareover’. Those claims have been published far and wide, including by Steyn and Levant, who I imagine are worth a bob or two. All the more puzzling that he hasn’t.
Buckets, LeMire could never be sure that the logs are in fact gone. I work in IT (I didn’t have enough personality to be an accountant), and these things are usually tucked away on a CD somewhere, even after the legal time limit. It would have been what Sir Humphrey would call extremely ‘courageous’ to manufacture evidence, given who he was up against. Incidentally thanks for the enjoyable badinage, and enjoy your break. Me? I’ll keep plodding on…
1. Why hasn't Warman said anything?
That's why we have defamation laws - so that the defamed party does not have to mount a counter-offensive PR campaign that likely would just amount to he said/she said ad nauseam. Why waste the time and effort? I'm sure if / when he's ready the proper parties will receive libel notices.
2. He hasn't filed suit because it would open himself up to discovery.
Information obtained in the course of discovery is confidential ( except those portions put on record at trial ). Further, any information can only be used for the proceeding in which it came about. If a party makes information public or attempts to use it in other proceedings - OUCH to them.
3. There would be more onus of LeMire to defend his evidence.
True. The only onus on Warman is to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the words were defamatory. That's pretty much a slam dunk here. Once he's met that low threshold the words are presumed to be false and it is up to the defendant to show they are true or that it was reasonable for him to think them true.
I suspect the reason he has not served libel notice to date is because he is doing a very complete job of due diligence. He will likely have the statement of claim drafted and ready to go before he serves notice. My guess is that he will proceed even if some or all of the defendants offer apologies/ retractions. That would mitigate the damages but not eliminate them - particularly if he alleges and proves malice.
The due diligence would involve making sure all parties are appropriately named and served. Given the potential number of defendants a large search of name and address databases will need to be done. He will also want to make sure that the pleadings are exact so that he does not have to face delays or motions for better particulars and get dinged for costs due to incomplete pleadings ( as recently happened to an "actual defamation lawyer" / blogger http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2005/2005abqb709/2005abqb709.html )
He is also likely trying to get a complete a picture as possible about the assets of potential defendants. It can cost 50 grand or more for a three day trial. That's an awful lot of money to only score a moral victory if the defendant's don't have the pockets to pay the award and costs ( and I note that at least 3 of the potential defendants are unemployed or lightly employed ). He will also want to keep an eye on any assets to make sure they are not improperly disposed of in an effort to become judgement proof. Again, that all takes time consuming searches of databases.
Finally, he may be trying to get a copy of the ISP logs. Most business records are kept for 7 years ( although I don't know if the ISP considers logs business records?) If they do have them it likely takes some time to go back 5 years or more to find them. Although the onus is not on him to prove it was not his addy having that information would likely cause the more reasonable defendants to settle early and on his terms.
I do not think it's a question of "if" he sues but "when". If we had a pool going I'd bet sometime in the next 45 days.
sholto, I suspect the log's possible, continued, existence would cut both ways. It prevents LeMire from tampering with the logs and it may well be preventing Warman from suing.
Warman does, however, have a few more reasons not to sue. First, he has already admitted under oath that his has posted under an assumed name - after previously denying it. Second, if he was working for the HRC at the time he was posting this filth there may be a paper trail at the HRC. Third, if was working there, he may very well have been reporting his "investigative" activities to a superior. Fourth, Warman's precise status at the HRC is extremely vague on the public record. We do know he was "laid off" alledgedly because of reduced funding. It would be very interesting to get a look at the HRC material surrounding this "layoff". And all that, potentially, would be available if Warman brings suit.
Thanks Nbob. We eagerly await the next 45 days… You must admit that after this period, further silence will look ever more damning.
What if those logs really are destroyed? Your point 3 above suggests that Warman would then win by default (he would only have to show the claims were defamatory, not that they were untrue – which LeMire would be unable to prove one way or the other). Presumably the latter would be aware of this, so would be even less likely to stick his neck out unless he a) was confident the logs existed and b) KNEW they supported his case. Probability still supports LeMire.
BCL claims that being a Nazi precludes rational thought – in most areas maybe, but self-interest is mighty important whatever one’s politics.
Jay, Nbob says that Discovery is limited to data directly relevant to the case at hand, so I guess details of Warman’s layoff would be off limits.
First, he has already admitted under oath that his has posted under an assumed name - after previously denying it.
Such is the nature of Jay Currie's attention to detail that suggests he probably should not take on something he's not quite skilled enough to handle. From what I understood from reading the transcripts, Warman didn't deny anything. He stated he couldn't recall having registered with the site in question and then acknowledged he had when presented with evidence.
It might seem like a minor detail, and you can take it for what it's worth, but it's patently not what Currie has asserted here about what is a signal event in this whole boring saga.
I can understand why Currie no longer practices law...you can imagine him in court, screaming "Liar, liar, liar!" while the defendant thumbs through the Yellow Pages shopping for a new lawyer.
sholto-
There is usually a time limit to serve notice ( in Alberta it's 3 months from the time you become aware of the defamatory words)
Assuming he learned of the words right after the first bit was published in mid-January he would have to serve the notice by mid-April or his cause of action is extinguished.
I'll add a little more after I return from court.
ti-guy,
transcript
Reads to me as first a denial then an admission....
Not a particularly big deal, though, Jay. Warman had already said that he used psueds to post to some groups, not to others. He didn't think he used one to post to Freedomsite. It was pointed out to him that he had. He stood corrected. If you want to read suspicious answers, check out Klatt talking about how he wound up attending all those white supremacist events without actually being a white supremacist.
And remember, Klatt's testimony was already dismissed once. (More than once, in a way. He has testified during several cases and stank out the joint each time)
bcl, I have zero time for Klatt and, like you view what he says with a truckload of salt.
You can certainly spin Warman's testimony as a memory lapse; however, if you combine it with Stacey's you might notice that a pattern begins to emerge. That pattern is that as "investigators" for the CHRC they monitored and posted to various sites. They did not use their own names. Some, but not all of the names they did use, including "Lucy" have been acknowledged. Others have not.
Just for fun, imagine a government investigator posting to Rabble with increasingly anti-Zionist material. One of the Rabble gets a bit excited then posts some hardcore anti-semitic remark and is summarily hauled before the CHRC. Do you see that as fair ball?
Jay, If you didn't get ALL your news on this issue from FreeD you would realize that this was already well-known stuff before their "revelations". Warman has written and spoken of his tactics on several occasions.
Nor did it bother the HRCs in question in this or previous cases. Presumably, CHRC investigators are not required to employ purely passive forms of monitoring and information collection.
Nbob, I don't actually read FD very often but it is a handy source for transcripts.
That these tactics were "well known" does nothing to legitimize them. They are in the sordid tradition of barn burning Mounties and the QPP infiltrating anti-globalization protests with officers carrying rocks.
Jay,
Whatever your feelings about the tactics, your origonal contention was that these tactics and Warman's admission that he used them on Freedomsite would somehow impede his ability to sue. You seemed to have changed the subject when it was shown that they would prove to be no such impediment.
"At the moment his silence speaks volumes."
the innocent need only protest their innocence when held to account. the real question is: why hasn't lemire filed a complaint of his own against warman? he says he's got the evidence. klatt's an albatross? then lemire can find himself another expert, right?
no, it's lemire's silence (his pissing and moaning notwithstanding) that raises the eyebrow.
KEvron
"not all of the names they did use.... have been acknowledged."
tea leaves or ouija, karnac?
KEvron
KEvron, if you recall, Warman’s alleged ‘90sareover’ post was ‘aimed’ at Senator Cools. LeMire would therefore be in a weak position to file a complaint.
I don’t like siding with either gentleman but I consider Warman to be far more dangerous, so on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy…” I will defend LeMire’s actions by suggesting that he was attempting to undermine Warman’s credibility and perhaps present someone else the opportunity to do the actual nailing.
"They've essentially let themselves get played by Nazis! What's next? Successfully burgled by a gang of retarded chipmunks?"
I'll take my chances with the "Nazis", at least chipmunks are actually a nuisance.
Post a Comment