The full text of Ezra' statement is here.Just a couple of points. The picture above left is related to paragraph 41 of Ezra's statement, which reads in part:
In 2006, Mr. Warman paid for a bus to transport dozens of ARA [Anti Racist Action] Members to the Toronto home of Mr. [Paul] Fromm.
ARA was and is a decentralized group of anti-Fascist activists working in Canada and the U.S. If you lived in Toronto, esp. during the 1990s and earlier part of this decade, you might have read about how this "ragamuffin band of homeless street kids and anarchists" out-hustled and out organized our local white supremacist contingent, including at the event depicted above left.
While Richard Warman addressed the group in 2005, the only evidence ever presented to the effect that he rented a bus to get them to Paul Fromm's Toronto residence is the photo shown above left. A couple of days ago, a member of ARA's Toronto chapter contacted me with information on the 2006 incident(1):
This is a canard that has been spread by neo-nazis...too obtuse to understand a sarcastic placard when they see one ("Thanks Richard Warman for the bus rental" - meant to taunt the fascists) ...In fact, the bus, which cost approximately $200, was paid for by ARA organizers.
Put another way, Ezra's lawyers are unable to distinguish between a joke placard and a financial statement.
In fact, part of the problem with Ezra's statement of defense is how heavily it leans upon material gleaned from this site. While the people behind Richardwarmen.com are still mysterious, immediately upon its creation word of the page was published on Stormfront (warning, link to Neo-Nazi website!). This is something you don't want to happen if you intend to use material from a site in your libel defense. It rather lowers the credibility of that material.
Furthermore, at several points in his statement of the defense Levant refers to "the ARA" which, given the fact that "ARA" stands for "Anti Racist Action", is ungrammatical. Correct is "ARA" or "the ARA network". What is telling is that this particular error is typical of Neo-Nazi references to the group. For example, here and here (Warning! More Nazis!). Another sign of where the material in Ezra's statement originates.
(1) This account has been corroborated from a number of other sources. The point of the placard is that previously members of the Stormfront community had speculated that Warman must be renting buses for the ARA network, so many of them were turning out for Anti-Ernst Zundel protests.
22 comments:
It'll be interesting to find out how Ezra ends up substantiating the multitude of claims he's making against Warman.
A couple of Ezraholics descended on me in that blog posting by Luiza Ch. Savage at Macleans and I recognize the supremacist style of argumentation when I see it. These people have had a lot of practice articulating the defence of their irrational beliefs.
Well,
they can't is the problem. For example, re the Cools post. Ezra admits in the statement of defense that the claim that Warmen wrote the post is unprovable (Rogers records are gone). I've been told that the post cannot even be used as evidence.
I've been told that the post cannot even be used as evidence.
I think Ezra has crossed over into conspiracy thinking; I got that impression when he started whining about Chinese interference with his blog's comment section, although he provided no evidence of that (as far as I know).
Conspiracies are fun, but when you have no evidence, you don't have anything.
My husband is a lawyer. He was astounded at 2 things having to do with Ezra's statement of defense;
1. Posting it online and repeating all the libels he tells me is a grand no-no
2. It is totally devoid of factual proof and only repeats the original offences
He tells me there is never a "slam-dunk" when it comes to the law but this is as close as it gets.
On a seperate note Ezra's latest post on a 1966 Macleans article about the Canadian Jewish Congress infiltrating the Canadian Nazi Party is a real shocker. Not in the way Ezra manipulates though. You really need to read it. The Jewish Congress was responsible for destroying a growing Nazi threat in Canada. Its a great story nothing to do with Ezra's conspiracy theory that CJC funded the Canadian nazi party blah blah blah, that's just Ezra doing his misinformation thing. But do read the story...best thing Ezra ever posted that should make you profoundly proud of the work CJC undertook at the time.
Mitka:
A couple of points if I may.
A statement of defense, as in most legal documents which are not privileged or subject to a confidentiality order are public documents. Any citizen could walk up to the courthouse, request it, and have a copy made. Its a fundamental principle of common law that legal proceedings be open to the public. So, I dont see how posting the SoD online is a problem.
I agree however that its a dangerous game to comment on your own court case publicly, lest you say something that comes back to haunt you at trial or something.
Also, a SoD is not meant to include any factual proofs. They are meant to provide the legal basis for your defense - to tell the plaintiff what defense you will rely on. Evidence is presented at trial.
With respect to the case being a slam dunk or not, I disagree with your husband. I submitted the SoD to a friend of mine who's a defamation lawyer, and he suggests that is not so.
Besides, the Supreme Court has recently significantly broadened the "fair comment" defense, on which Ezra relies. If you have 45 minutes to kill and dont mind reading something long and boring, you may find it here.
Oh Dear - so you have just reposted links to LIBEL?
Calling Ezra an "Nazi" - My feelings are hurt! "Special K" has sued for less than that.
Love how Marxists call a Kettle Black. White or Red Russians rule?
Besides, the Supreme Court has recently significantly broadened the "fair comment" defense, on which Ezra relies.
Too late for Ezra. He's been incriminating himself more and more ever since he was first served.
What. A. Tool.
Jermo, I agree that a statement of defence does not require proof but ir does require some indication of a defence. The repitition of of the original libel (as seems t be the entire statement) seems a legally ridiculous statement to the Court, But hey its Ezra's money. And mitka's husband said there was no such thing as a "alam dunk" but this came close. Five different lawyers at my weekly bridge game agreed with Mitka's husband. We should start a pool here.
And oh yes the SCC still left malice as a form of libel. Ezra watch out!
The repitition of of the original libel (as seems t be the entire statement) seems a legally ridiculous statement to the Court, But hey its Ezra's money
Hey Ohara,
actually ezra's first line of defense is that he's telling the truth, so repeating the original libel is exactly what he needs to do - and it's not all ezra's money, but Im sure the ezra's donors support the strategy adopted by ezra's lawyers.
Five different lawyers at my weekly bridge game agreed with Mitka's husband. We should start a pool here.
hey sounds good - since it should be such an obvious victory for Warman, you can give me 10-1 odds right?
And oh yes the SCC still left malice as a form of libel. Ezra watch out!
malice is hard to prove, because you have to show specific intent to defame, and further, malice becomes relevant after the defense of fair comment has been successfully established, so if we get to that point, i like ezra's odds even more.
malice is hard to prove, because you have to show specific intent to defame,
And we have Ezra's blog postings and the hideous character assassination campaign he's mounted for quite some time now, along with the unbridled, seething hatred he's unleashed in his comments section.
What luck!
I always thought Ezra was just obnoxious before this. I didn't know he was so hate-filled and vindictive.
But then again, all you "conservatives" are, and the speechies are the worst.
Jermo wrote,
"...actually ezra's first line of defense is that he's telling the truth."
I've noted one instance here where he is definitely, 100% retailing a falsehood. I know of another 2 definites with respect to the ARA network. He has said in his statment that he can't prove the stuff about the Cools post.
He'll be back from the first line to the last ditch pretty soon, methinks.
I've noted one instance here where he is definitely, 100% retailing a falsehood.
you mean the bus rental thing? sure, but is Warman really defamed by the fact that he would have rented a bus for the ARA? and if he was, the sign held up by the ARA member would certainly provide Ezra with a basis for making that comment.
I recommend you check out the Mair decision which I linked to in my earlier post, if you havent already. You'll come out of it bored and better informed as to what issues are actually at play in a defamation suit (and you'll read the Supremes giving high praise to the idea of freedom of speech). In particular you'll find that the fact that he doesnt have a definitive proof that Warman posted the Cools post is far from the end of the story.
But then again, all you "conservatives" are, and the speechies are the worst.
Geez finally. If I dont get my broad generalization of all things conservative on a daily basis, I get all confused.
Please, Jermo, the Mair decision doesn't seem to have any application here. Its all about whether you believe all of the consequences of what you have said, as far as I can tell. Not whether you are propogating provably false statements. And if Ezra is going to plead privilege because he's a journalist, then, as I say in the post, a journalist should know better than to mistake a placard for a financial statement (or should at least make an attempt to determine one from the other).
You're faking stupidity, right?
If I dont get my broad generalization of all things conservative on a daily basis, I get all confused.
"Conservative," Jermo, "conservative."
I've been listening to David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine this week. The nastiness, brutishness, vindictiveness and pure, undistilled eeevil of "conservatives" is jaw-dropping.
I especially liked the part on convicted and incarcerated felon Conrad Black.
Not whether you are propogating provably false statements.
BCL, Mair is about a radio host who called this woman a nazi on his radio show. She was not, actually a nazi.
I just quickly re-read the "words complained of" in the defense, and warman does not complain of being generous towards an anti-racism group. He essentially complains of Ezra attributing the Cools post to him.
Its all about whether you believe all of the consequences of what you have said, as far as I can tell.
Not the consequence - if the consequence is defamation - if you believed what you said to be true, based on the facts. Where I agree Ezra's case gets weak, is on the issue of whether his statements are intended as a comment or a fact.
However, Bucket's analysis notwithstanding (will he be testifying?), there are certain undisputed facts which certainly suggest that Warman made the Cools post, even though we ultimately dont know. Im not knowledgeable enough in defamation law to know to what extent these will affect the ruling, but Im impressed BCL that you obviously are.
You're faking stupidity, right?
Wow, insults from ti-guy are a dime a dozen, but this one is more special.
Wow, insults from ti-guy are a dime a dozen, but this one is more special.
Do you ever wonder, BCL, why Jermo spends so much time here? He only ever talks to you and me, and since he thinks I'm a total cretin, you have to wonder why he's squatting, here, at your blog.
Jerome: Can you explain why you're here?
Jerome: Can you explain why you're here?
first off, I dont think you're a total cretin, but I actually derive some entertainment from your over-the-top reactions and angry denunciations of everything conservative.
but really I enjoy arguing with people who have different opinions. i find it boring to comment on something and having everybody agree.
I find BCL to be generally well-informed and he discusses issues of interest to me, even though I generally disagree.
Im certainly not here to piss you off or to insult you guys, and if you guys are annoyed at my presence, I wont come back. Im sure I can find another liberal blog to discuss things.
but I actually derive some entertainment from your over-the-top reactions and angry denunciations of everything conservative.
And that in itself, is revealing...what type of person derives satisfaction from the legitimate anger of other people? It reminds me of high school when the bullies grinned when they managed to so thoroughly outrage their targets. It's behaviour I was brought up to consider unseemly.
Now, it's de rigueur even among educated professionals. Although none that have to deal with me in real life, that's for sure...
I don't think my reaction to everything "conservative" (remember, neoconservatism is not genuine conservatism; it's ideological, radical and morally/intellectually corrupt) is all that singular or particularly noteworthy. Look at what "conservatives" have done over the last while: defended an immoral/illegal invasion that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, engaged in what clearly is electoral fraud to gain power in our government, reversed course as soon as they did to develop a style of government that is more opaque and unaccountable than any Canada has seen in a very long time, have displayed an ineptness in managing the country's finances in a way that continues to astound me and are being defended by a conspiracy of illiberal, dishonest courtiers and bald-faced liars who have defecated on every tradition and institution this country has in order to deflect any responsibility and to continue with their radical course of trying to reverse 60 years of progressive development in this country.
For me, this campaign, not just against human rights commissions and tribunals, but against the very idea that human rights ought be protected in this country (no one seems to remember that Ezra Levant and his cabal hate the very concept of human rights laws) is just one more manifestation of the true proto-fascism of these movement conservatives.
I appreciate the fact that you are not as egregiously dishonest as people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are, but your willingness to defend these primitive bigots and chauvinists strikes me as odd.
I appreciate the fact that you are not as egregiously dishonest as people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are, but your willingness to defend these primitive bigots and chauvinists strikes me as odd.
yeah sure, and your ideas strike me ass odd sometimes too. we view the world differently - conservatives arent evil, and neither are liberals. even commies ultimately want a better world. besides, nothing good ever comes out of attributing evil motives to your ideological opponents.
anyways, im a conservative, but as I see that as part of being conservative, we have to recognize that conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives.
ps: i dont enjoy your anger, so much as the way you express your anger.
yeah sure, and your ideas strike me ass odd sometimes too.
What ideas? Seriously, I'd like to know, as had always thought I'm nowhere near interesting nor eccentric nor original enough to have odd ideas.
I do happen to believe, quite seriously, that neoconservatism (what you think of as 'conservatism,' probably because you've never experienced real conservatism) is profoundly evil as it is founded on the premise of the "noble lie."
What ideas? Seriously, I'd like to know
well like the one about the noble lie and that neocons are evil - and more generally, the liberal reflex that the state has the answer to everything, like the whole HRC thing.
i just cant see it that way - i dont think you're stupid or evil for thinking that way - i think it comes down to the way we see government.
i see it as a necessary evil to be minimized.
anyways, i look forward to future arguments with you and BCL.
well like the one about the noble lie
Do you think I invented that? Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism admits to that when he claimed:
There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.
There's a lot more written about neconservatism that you should look into. Some frank neoconservatives, such as Niall Ferguson, admit to the noble lie rather willingly.
The Bush administration's fabricated casus belli for the Iraq invasion is just one more manifestation of that.
and that neocons are evil.
That's just shorthand for an aggregation of pathological behaviour that results in immoral actions: arrogance, greed, self-interest, stupidity, ignorance, wishful thinking, magical thinking, etc. etc. The bottom line with neoconservatives is that they prefer compulsion (either through force or through deception) to persuasion. They have to, since their world view is incompatible with liberal democracy and their assumptions about human nature are unscientific.
It's interesting that you evince another trait that is common among neoconservatives; automatic gain-saying whether they have sufficient evidence to make that assertion or not.
and more generally, the liberal reflex that the state has the answer to everything, like the whole HRC thing.
This lie about the HRC has to be abandoned. The process is complaint-driven and it's a dispute resolution process that the State mediates and the decisions of which it enforces. That what the State does.
As for me thinking the State has an answer for everything, I don't. In fact, I'm probably just as convinced as you are that the State interference in our lives should be as minimal as possible. We just simply disagree about degree.
Thinking the State is a necessary evil is irrational and paranoid, especially the when the Canadian state is responsible for creating one of the most advanced societies in the history of the world.
anyways, i look forward to future arguments with you and BCL.
I'm not. Arguing with neoliberals (which is what you really are) is drearily predictable, since you types always have the answers before you've even properly analysed the issue and determined the problem.
I could make every one of your arguments (and probably more compellingly) for you from now on and save you the time...which you should spend on reading books produced by publishers other than Regnery or ones written by Ayn Rand.
Post a Comment