Warman is looking for $50,000 from the defendants, "jointly and severally", apologies, and retractions, and etc. Central to this case is the "Anne Cools" Post of which I have written so often.
Remember, this is not about possibly frivolous uses of the HRC process anymore. We're talking libel now.
PS. My favorite bit from the documentation:
"Mr. Lemire and his direct associates had always been cautious enough never to spread the allegation [re the Cools post] outside of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing. Indeed, one of Lemire's closest associates indicated in an Internet posting that they had legal advice not to do so (presumably knowing they would be sued for libel)."
Never, never, never trust them Nazis.
36 comments:
Remember, this is not about possibly frivolous uses of the HRC process. We're talking libel now.
Doesn't matter, I think. The same arguments will be trotted out.
Apparently, the notice of libel (intent) was delivered to them all in late February. Is this the reason why they all became so much more awful?
Well, this got interesting again, if anything.
The same arguments will be trotted out.
LeRant is already throwing the same shit against the wall.
Warman is looking for $50,000 from the defendants
Too bad Warman is suing for so little. $500k would have really made them cry.
someone should tell Warman that the more exposure he brings to these Star Courts, the more ordinary Canadians will come to see how bad they are.
Rule one for Warman . . . . when you are digging your own grave, recovery starts by putting down the shovel.
someone should tell Warman that the more exposure he brings to these Star Courts, the more ordinary Canadians will come to see how bad they are.
I don't think so. What Canadians are seeing is the moral corruption and the hypocrisy underlying the motivations of people who simply don't believe in human rights protection.
That started long ago with Ezra "It's the Stupid Charter" Levant, and I've been impressed with the resolve of his like-minded fans.
Rule one for Warman...
Go back to talking to the drunks at the end of the bar, Fred.
..except Fred, that the HRC (as BCL pointed out) has nothing to do with this libel suit. That's in regular court. You must have missed that part.
That said, I'm a tad uncomfortable with the portion of his suit where he explains why he's going after Kate and SDA - essentially its over someone else's comments that got said in her comments section.
This is similar to what Mark Francis and others like Wikipedia and Google were getting sued over by Wayne Crookes - not stuff they directly said.. but happening to post a link to supposed libellous article. There weren't many in our side of the blogosphere (none actually) that thought that was anything but libel chill.. and even if it is Kate and SDA involved, this looks like it could be the same thing on the other side of the blogging spectrum.
You might find some unlikely allies of Kate on the lefty side of the blogosphere once people read that PDF file and realize that.
...appeared in her comments section but were never taken off. I think there's probably ample precedent to call her on that.
(I've had to be more careful in that regard myself lately)
Linking to material seems to be a different matter. It is at one further remove.
Clapton, Pageboy Gone Wrong Era, Royal Albert Hall, Chuck Leavell on Hammond, Pretending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVKVTk2wYc
What does this has to do with free speech? Fuck all. It's too nice and sunny for all this nasty "Canadian" talk.
That said, I'm a tad uncomfortable with the portion of his suit where he explains why he's going after Kate and SDA
War is hell, Scott. Kate deserves to be on the list for whatever reason Warman can come up with. If she doesn't like it, then she should remove her brown shirt and refrain from joining the Warman lynch mob.
That said, I'm a tad uncomfortable with the portion of his suit where he explains why he's going after Kate and SDA - essentially its over someone else's comments that got said in her comments section.
I don't think that's entirely correct. I'd pore over the notice again, but I find myself wanting to examine the artifacts in question, and really, I can't stand to visit those blogs very often.
It's clear to me when information is re-posted in a campaign to defame and when it might simply be just a reference to information that is believed to be credible. Unfortunately, our libel laws don't work that way.
Regardless of outcome The Good Guys Win and Warman loses;)
Uh, and where exactly does that reasoning come from, BCF?
Perhaps you need to add the label "People who are dumber than Marc Lemire"
God, but he's played Wilkins and Fournier for prize saps!
Uh, and where exactly does that reasoning come from, BCF?
You're assuming it's reason to begin with. It isn't.
Anyway, one thing I'd do is delete BCF's comments automatically, since he/she makes a point of spreading defamation and gossip.
-------------Anyway, one thing I'd do is delete BCF's comments automatically, since he/she makes a point of spreading defamation and gossip-------------------
You tell him Nellie Olson!
Sorry, Dainty. I don't make it a point of doing drive-by's all over hell's half acre spreading rumour and gossip and pasting disinformation and making sure everyone knows how much I'm enjoying someone else's misfortune. My drive-by's are limited to calling people what John McCain's calls his wife.
Otherwise, I'd have been over at KKKate's for the past two weeks telling her how much I'm enjoying her various travails, comeuppances, brouhahas and imbrogli.
Nice reference to Nellie Olsen, by the way. Is that nostalgia?
May post on this tomorrow, but the OHRC has said they will not take the Steynomplaint. Out of their mandate, although they do think Macleans has been Islamophobic, and explictly state as much.
although they do think Macleans has been Islamophobic, and explictly state as much.
At this point, MacLean's should take this as a compliment. It means that all the work it's done to become a neoconservative rag has paid off.
Daniel Lanois, The Maker, Sessions at 54th Street, Featuring Emmylou Harris:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR2jTxHVUwM
Again, may I make the suggestion BCL, that its about time you get Haloscan on here for comment usage? At least you can then see where the trolls are coming from and deal with them accordingly (or you could also just switch to Wordpress :) )
Scott, Yeah I've been thinking of that, but every time I attempt a change on this blog it blows up in my face. Haloscan seems to have problems of its own, sometimes.
On a humourous note, page 2 of the Statement of Claim names "FIVEFEETOFFURRY" as one of the defendants.
BCL:
You can always start up a test blog over at the Wordpress site on the side without shutting this one down. If you like it, you switch. If you don't, no harm, no foul
Paul S, it is rumored that Shaidle has hair on her back. Hence, perhaps, that reference.
I'm glad someone in this whole sorry mess has hair on their back BCL; I was starting to worry.
And now we see some backpedalling by the OHRC:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/
resources/news/statement
While the OHRC has decided not to proceed with complaints against Maclean's because they have no legal authority to do so, the tone of their statement indicates they are not pleased.
And now we see some backpedalling by the OHRC:
How is that "backpedalling?" What previous statement is the OHRC backpedaling from?
Get serious ti-guy.
Ok.
How is that "backpedalling"...seriously?
Warman will have to work within a real court overseen by a real judge and undergo real cross examinations jeandeguass.
It may well end up to be Warman who gets his knuckles rapped by a true court. He might even be forced to pay the defendants legal costs if his case is ever deemed frivolous.
ti-guy:
"How is that "backpedalling"...seriously?"
Did you even read the statement ti-guy?
The alarming part about the OHRC statement is that even though Maclean's is not guilty of any crime, the OHRC nonetheless finds Maclean's guilty of Islamophobia.
It is preposterous that a silly government agency can declare Maclean's guilty of "Islamophobia" when it has no legal authority to do so.
Having no legal right to proceed, it is incumbent for the OHRC to shut up.
You have yet to demonstrate any backpedaling. Indeed, your post shows you feel they are going forward recklessly. So once again, where is the backpedaling? What sspecifically have they said that they are now backing away from? Not what you think they should back away from.
I read the statement Paul S. Obviously, you haven't. The word "guilty" doesn't even appear. The OHRC identified the articles in MacLeans and in other media as contributing to islamophobia, and it's within the Commission's mandate to speak on such issues to advance the cause of human rights protection.
You still haven't explained how it backpedaled, by the way.
Why do all you freedom warriors have to resort to lying all the time to argue your cases? Even when things go your way, you lie.
Interesting, the OHRC does not hold a hearing, but still can proclaim Macleans's as "contributing" to Islamophobia.
Since the obvious escapes you ti-guy, the OHRC backpedalled by stating Maclean's "contributes" to Islamophobia, (which makes them guilty) but, oh wait, we, the OHRC, have no authority in this matter so, sorry, we won't be holding a hearing.
Lastly, nobody lied. What's your probem, got up on the wrong side of bed today?
Richard Warman IS the HRC.
This is a war of the HRC
against the conservative blogs.
Hey! He's fighting for all you guys
on the loony left!
"This is similar to what Mark Francis and others like Wikipedia and Google were getting sued over by Wayne Crookes - not stuff they directly said.. but happening to post a link to supposed libellous article. There weren't many in our side of the blogosphere (none actually) that thought that was anything but libel chill.."
To be precise, my linking 'offense' in that Crookes suit is that I administered a wiki which featured candidates for internal elections for the Green Party of Canada. Any candidate who had their own web site got a link to their site. One candidate has a link on their site which linked to a site Crookes objected to. I was in no way recommending people to go to that candidate's site in order to go to the other site. I got sued anyway.
The problem with Kate at SDA is that she is the publisher. Even if she was away and not able to monitor her site, she still carries a reasonable measure of liability for what is posted there. If there is libel, the issue isn't likely to be whether or not Kate is liable, but for how much -- probably for an amount much less than Shaidle.
Post a Comment