That was a large award on costs! Googling Mr. Levant it seems there have been a number of past libel cases he has lost and at least one pending. Not someone I would want as a commentator on anything important.
Yes, sharon, I was thinking it would help with his legal bills. I wonder how a neutral, informed observer would compare his book to the other books that were in the runing.
It baffles me how a Constitution can proclaim freedom of speech and simultaneously allow for the impeachment of such a right through libel laws. It is to my understanding that in a libel case demonstrating that the defamatory statements are actually true does not matter. All that the accuser has to prove is that the statements hurt his credibility and reputation. Additionally, a knee jerk reaction to such statements doesn't precisely help the accuser in looking innocent. People should stop taking offense so damn often, and if they have business to protect they should conduct their business in transparent and open ways. Perhaps a reading of the letter of intent to sue sent by Giacomo Vigna to Ezra Levant can clear up some things (http://ezralevant.com/Vigna%20v.%20Levant.pdf). My own opinion is that people abuse the libel law in Canada to take offense at anything and everything and receive compensation for doing so.
I wonder how a neutral, informed observer would compare his book to the other books that were in the runing.
Ezra Levant may have deserved it. (I've just read Economyths, which is a good book if you're interested in an outsider's view of economics.) As one report notes that it was a tough competition. Levant wasn't the expected winner considering that these were the other nominees:
-Sheila McLeod Arnopoulos, Saris on Scooters: How Microcredit Is Changing Village India (Dundurn Press) -Richard Florida, The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity (Random House Canada) -David Orrell, Economyths: Ten Ways Economics Gets It Wrong (John Wiley & Sons Canada)
@Gabriel - you obviously are unfamiliar with our laws. Read a bit and you'll be less incensed. levant got hammered in costs which is something reserved only for especially egregious cases.
OT: BCL, the trump of doom sounded a week early on Wegman and Said (well, not the ultimate one, but enough to titillate the fans). See you-know-where for details and (very soon I'm sure) the Big Bunny for inspirational snark.
That was a large award on costs! Googling Mr. Levant it seems there have been a number of past libel cases he has lost and at least one pending. Not someone I would want as a commentator on anything important.
ReplyDeleteThat was a large award on costs!
ReplyDeleteSomething like this would help with the payment. (Part of me wonders if this is the reason they gave it to him. ;) )
Yes, sharon, I was thinking it would help with his legal bills. I wonder how a neutral, informed observer would compare his book to the other books that were in the runing.
ReplyDeleteReginald, There's more than one pending.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Canada's defamation laws are working as intended. Juvenile delinquents like Levant deserve their reward.
ReplyDeleteIt baffles me how a Constitution can proclaim freedom of speech and simultaneously allow for the impeachment of such a right through libel laws. It is to my understanding that in a libel case demonstrating that the defamatory statements are actually true does not matter. All that the accuser has to prove is that the statements hurt his credibility and reputation. Additionally, a knee jerk reaction to such statements doesn't precisely help the accuser in looking innocent. People should stop taking offense so damn often, and if they have business to protect they should conduct their business in transparent and open ways. Perhaps a reading of the letter of intent to sue sent by Giacomo Vigna to Ezra Levant can clear up some things (http://ezralevant.com/Vigna%20v.%20Levant.pdf). My own opinion is that people abuse the libel law in Canada to take offense at anything and everything and receive compensation for doing so.
ReplyDelete@Gabriel:
ReplyDeleteRights aren't absolutes - they have boundaries - usually where the exercise of rights begin to impinge unreasonably upon the rights of others.
To put it in a more concrete sense for you - "Your right to swing your fist ends precisely where my nose begins".
Think about it.
" It is to my understanding that in a libel case demonstrating that the defamatory statements are actually true does not matter."
ReplyDeleteI don't see what this has to do with Vigna v. Levant.
If you deign to explain, careful you don't commit libel yourself.
GD,
ReplyDeleteIn libel cases truth is an absolute defense. Also, the judge deemed a whole whack of Ezras assertions false and reckless and malicious. He got boned.
I wonder how a neutral, informed observer would compare his book to the other books that were in the runing.
ReplyDeleteEzra Levant may have deserved it. (I've just read Economyths, which is a good book if you're interested in an outsider's view of economics.) As one report notes that it was a tough competition. Levant wasn't the expected winner considering that these were the other nominees:
-Sheila McLeod Arnopoulos, Saris on Scooters: How Microcredit Is Changing Village India (Dundurn Press)
-Richard Florida, The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity (Random House Canada)
-David Orrell, Economyths: Ten Ways Economics Gets It Wrong (John Wiley & Sons Canada)
@Gabriel - you obviously are unfamiliar with our laws. Read a bit and you'll be less incensed. levant got hammered in costs which is something reserved only for especially egregious cases.
ReplyDeleteOT: BCL, the trump of doom sounded a week early on Wegman and Said (well, not the ultimate one, but enough to titillate the fans). See you-know-where for details and (very soon I'm sure) the Big Bunny for inspirational snark.
ReplyDeleteCongrats!you deserve for that award.
ReplyDeleteMaria[wool overcoat]