Caught in two really. Here we have a case from the BCHRT in which the complainant was ordered to pay costs (full decision, which I have not read yet, can be found here) to the respondents for a specious claim. But wait! According to The Ez, that isn't supposed to happen!
As well, the natural check on American-style over-litigation – the financial, time and emotional cost of suing, and the risk of costs being awarded to the defendant – were not in play. The government of Alberta carried the investigation against us, and, had the case not been dismissed, would have prosecuted us before a tribunal. The complainants didn’t have to spend a dime or a minute – and the law prohibited me from collecting costs when I won.
Actually, I thought Ezra had scored a legitimate point with this argument. And I am still unsure of how the various HRCs may or may not be allowed to ding a complainant if their case does not meet the standard. But apparently it can happen.
20 comments:
I'm not so sure I would take a letter from the CJC issued so late at face value. It does seem rather convenient and contrive - but hey if they want this to be the official story...
Maybe Kinsella wanted to pall around with the JDL....
You're right. Jay Currie and the Ez are just sooo much more reliable.
It doesn't matter if the letter was issued five minutes ago. The current position by the Executive managers of CJC state that he Warren resigned and was not dismissed. This leaves Ez on the hook 100%.
Not exactly the first time he's rushed into print with misapprehensions followed up by more misapprehensions. If he was smart he'd apologize and try to settle. But he isn't so he won't.
The current position by the Executive managers of CJC state that he Warren resigned and was not dismissed.
That won't matter to Ezra and Mr. Kathy Shaidle. They'll just claim that their "sources" know otherwise.
...and on it goes.
You're right. Jay Currie and the Ez are just sooo much more reliable.
Almost as much as WK and the CJC are self-serving...
Yeahbut, CWTF, be fair...this little drama isn't the only thing WK and the CJC are about. With Ezra (and especially the non-entity Jay Currie) this all they have.
I don't think any of us are in the least bit surprised.
High profile people in organizations rarely get fired. Rather they "resign to persue other interests." In other words, official releases are poor indicators of what really happened.
Well, what really did happen, Rabbit? And cite sources, please.
Oh, never mind. Your innuendo...er...brilliant insight was more than enough.
It's "pursue," by the way.
So far comments from Jay Currie and Ezra Levant himself. Haven't allowed them to pass moderation. Yet. Thinking of dealing with each specifically later on.
Mr. Levant is still claiming Kinsella was fired and this is all spin.
He's right about spinning going on, but who is doing the spinning here? I think our sources have more street cred than Mr. Levant. :)
I'd make the Ez sweat a bit before you publish his remark.
Incidentally, is he accusing the CJC lying about what the CJC did?
If they name names, publish them (or better, pass them on). If it's just more gossip and innuendo, who cares?
Ti-Guy:
Up to your usual vacuous bullshit, I see. Don't you get tired of having nothing to say?
Working solely from the CJC release, I don't know what happened. But using that as a source, neither does any one else, which was the point of my comment.
Rabbet, so you too are saying that the CJC doesn't know what its talking about when it comes to the CJC?
Up to your usual vacuous bullshit, I see. Don't you get tired of having nothing to say?
Well, since you pretty much stated what I had, earlier in the tread, it's not I who has nothing to say.
And the thing is...you have never said anything useful (or even amusing). Just trite and dull observations that anyone with a grade 8 education should be familiar with already.
BCL,are you going down the "the emails were fake" road again...A while ago you conceded they were real.
You might want to check the sequence on the emails and the Jackal's "resignation". And you might want to check my blog to see if I ever stated he was "fired".
And why was the top line of the CJC letter redacted? And why didn't Kinsella publish it himself? And why didn't Bernie, who was "in the room" so to speak sign the letter rather than the Co-Presidents of the CJC who most assuredly were not?
BCL, if you want to carry water for the Jackal, be my guest, but do yourself the favour of being just the tiniest bit skeptical when letters are produced a month after the fact just as Macleans is poking around.
However, the good news is that Bernie is no longer stuck with the NDA so you can give him a call and get the story.
Oh, and noonespecial200, you asked for Ezra's reaction and got it. You goot two comments from me but you are too chickenshit to publish them or answer the simple question: where did you get the letter.
Quick correction: ARC has now posted my comments....not answered the questions posed but I'll withdraw the "chickenshit".
BCL,are you going down the "the emails were fake" road again...A while ago you conceded they were real.
Did you do this, BCL? Did you find out who they were from? Were they ever published?
Nobody knows who they're from or if they're real. They are hardly terribly shocking, if real, so its all kind of irrelevant.
Post a Comment