Levant's Defamatory Posts Start To Come Down

From Vigna v. Levant:

So it looks like the posts judged defamatory in Levant Vs. Vigna are starting to be pulled from Ezra's website, or at least be altered to remove the offending material. He's been a bit sloppy about it; the cache of Even the human rights tribunal is sick of the human rights commission (original posting date March 20) still contains the defamatory comments, although they've been pulled from the amended version. Similarly, the defamatory material in a post entitled My Cousin Vinny (from May 18) has been disappeared, but is still there in the google cache. Similarly with Good Grief now Giacomo Vigna is threatening to sue me! (from April 28), but I won't bother linking to the cache. Similarly with the post from April 21st entitled Richard Warman misleads the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about "Jadewarr", under oath. Similarly with CTV's Mike Duffy Live (first posted May 21).

I note that the material in the March 26th post judged defamatory is still there. Interestingly enough, in that case the judge misread the phrase "bald-faced contempt" as "bold-faced contempt". Ezra appears to be capitalizing on this tiny error?

In any case, I think we can assume that Ezra won't be appealing Vigna v. Levant decision. I would also point out that it is possible to overwrite a google cache, so if Levant wants to sink this material entirely, he can do that.

PS. Paragraph 142 of the judgement orders Levant to remove "all defamatory blogs referring to Vigna from his website within 15 days". It looks to me that what he has done is not in compliance with the judge's instructions.

Ezra Levant Uses His Freedom Unethically

Even in vigorous debate over public policy issues there are rules for verbal combat; there is an ethics of debate.

Rule number one: it is nearly always wrong to personally attack those who hold opinions different from yours. When done deliberately, attacking your opponents instead of their views is dishonest because it purports to be about one thing – the public policy in question – but is actually about something else, the destruction of your opponents’ credibility or integrity. It can also be self-defeating. When seen for what it is – basically, character assassination – it can undermine whatever validity there is in your policy position.

Regardless, the strategy is often employed, most notoriously at present, by Ezra Levant, lawyer, writer and blogger on human rights commission issues, in his campaign against Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Here is a small sampling of the things Levant has written recently about her: “Jennifer Lynch is a damned liar,” “an execrable woman” and a “pathological liar.” “What an odious woman. When she accosted me . . ., I didn’t recognize her . . . She is much more haggard and old than her ancient publicity picture.”

This kind of personal attack, while not illegal unless false and thus defamatory (which some of this stuff might be), violates the ethics of debate because it targets a person, not the policy under scrutiny – whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have the power to regulate speech. And while Levant’s comments may be, taken cumulatively, intimidating, they have literally nothing to do with the law reform issue at hand.

This from Janet Keeping, the President of the Sheldon Chumir foundation, of whom Ezra once wrote

The Chumir Foundation is run by true liberals, like Janet Keeping – a deeply thoughtful woman who truly cares about real human rights.

The Chumir Foundation is on record as supporting the repeal of section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. It seems though they have realized that having Ezra on your side of an issue is a net negative.

Me On The CHRC

Some twerp at Western Standard has been talking trash about the stuff I have written re the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ezra Levant, Nazis...etc. etc.

He writes:

Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.

But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment.

Nothing to say?

Well, indeed I have written alot on Ezra's varous allegations. Because most of the ensuing debate hinges on their accuracy. Here's just a few wherein I believe I have managed to establish that one or another of his claims are false, either through original research or by citing the work of others:

On his false allegations re the creation of the Canadian Nazi Party by the CJC: here, here, and here.

On his false allegations (recycled from White Nationalist sources) re the "hacked wifi" controversy: here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's probably not all of them.

On his false allegations re the Cools post (also recycled from White Nationalist sources): here, here, here, here, here, here. And these are just the more important ones.

On Ezra's tenuous grasp of the complexities of the various provincial and federal human rights codes/laws etc: here, here, here, and esp. here (wherein I realized Ezra didn't understand what section of the B.C. code was actually at issue).

On Ezra's doubts re the existence of Bill White (American Neo-Nazi, now bound for the BigHouse thanks in part to Richard Warmen).

On Ezra's claim that Section 13 has been suspended (due to the brave work of himself, Ezra Levant).

And that's not half the stuff I've written. Anything I have said about Mr. Levant's accuracy has been sourced up the wazoo from multiple places.

But wait! Its not just about Ezra here at BCLSB, not even when it comes to the issues surrounding Canadian HRCs/HRTs (including the "problems" with the way they operate! For example:

On Warman's "shenanigans": here.

And on the Moon reports recommendations: here, here, here, here, and here.

On the Topham case (which is an example of "Left" anti-semitism and therefore, come to think of it, a refutation of Ezra's charge that HRCs/HRTs only target Conservatives).

On B'nai Brith's recommendations re the CHRC/CHRT.

Anyway, that is a small selection. I would just add that whenever I have made an error in writing about any of these matters, I have corrected it as quickly and openly as possible. That is what you do when you are concerned with facts. On the other hand, I doubt Ezra has every acknowledged error in any of the cases above, and others involved in the debate (Mark Steyn) have refused to pull false and in fact defamatory material from their websites when asked.

I would put this up against anything Mr. Yirush has attempted on the issue. Or anything Mr. Bourrie as done, come to think of it, Mr. Bourrie being a generally intelligent person who gets all tribal when he sees real or imaginary threats to the journalistic profession. In fact I would suggest that both men read some of the material before suggesting that I have been conducting an empty smear campaign.

I Spank You, Ezra Levant, I Spank You Spank You Spank You Very Much!

Pearl Eliades on HRCs in the news:

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice ruled on Nov. 18 that Giacomo Vigna, a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had been defamed by blogger Ezra Levant. According to the Court, Levant was on a campaign to discredit human rights commissions.

While that was in itself not inherently problematic from the perspective of the libel case, seeking to achieve that goal by defaming others was not a lawful objective. The court said that Levant showed "reckless disregard" for the truth in publishing the posts in question.

This does not make the Superior Court of Justice a "censor." What it does is to remove the "rights-shield" from defamatory speech, thus protecting Vigna's rights and, for that matter, the rights of anyone similarly situated. The point, to borrow a phrase, is that people's reputations and rights should not become roadkill on the path to free speech.

It is completely unacceptable that commission staff in Canada and human rights defenders here or anywhere else should be harassed, defamed and threatened simply for doing their jobs. Having worked in and with commissions before (and, by the way, having also represented respondents), I am acutely aware of the foibles and limitations of these institutions. But this does not justify the inaccuracy and lack of fairness to which they and their staffs have been subjected.

And lets just repeat: the Vigna defamation case was triggered as a result of White Nationalists leaving him phone threats and following tribunal security staff to their homes after a Warman V. Lemire-related hearing. This was something that none of the reporters who covered the defamation case that followed even bothered to mention until the judge's ruling made it impossible to ignore.

There's a pattern here, also illustrated in NP's coverage of the "hacked wifi" incident. Any allegation against the CHRC, however ridiculous, was treated seriously. Any news that cast the HRC staffers in a better light was judiciously ignored.

More On Free Speech Warrior Ezra Levant Oppressing People's Free Speechiness (IE. Suing Them For Defamation, Or Threatening To)

Following up on this, stuff from about ten years ago.  Shit our hero has been willing to sue people for defamation! (Bolding is mine)

After Harper became Canadian Alliance leader that year, he participated, along with current Conservative election chair John Reynolds, in a very public campaign to pressure the nominated candidate in the riding, Ezra Levant, to step aside so he could run for a seat in an upcoming by-election.

At the time Reynolds said that the party would assist with any debts [Levant] may have had which media reports claimed were at least $120,000. (Calgary Herald, March 22, 2003, National Post, April 8, 2002)

The incident deeply divided party members in Harper's riding association resulting in Levant and three other Calgary party members filing a $5.8-million lawsuit against other party members and executives over alleged defamation related to the nomination battle.  (Calgary Herald, November 22, 2003)

There's more on the same set of incidents (I think) from this old FreeD post from back in 2003.  I won't describe the contents through the link, just point to them, because doing more might itself count as defamatory these days.

And more shit from WK's old site.  Ezra tried to sue Chuck Strahl?

PS.  Thanks to Holly Stick in the comments!

Ezra Vs. The Indians

Chief Alphonse Lameman weighs in on Ezra's anti-First Nations comments at a public debate hosted by the Wilderness Committee in Vancouver, BC on November 18, 2010:

“Mr. Levant’s words are ugly and mean-spirited and add nothing to the tar sands conversation in Canada,” said Chief Lameman. “He takes the level of discussion on important issues like the destruction of the boreal forest by tar sands to a new low, denigrating the importance of our beliefs and the stand we have taken as stewards of our traditional lands. His negative and sweeping comments on First Nations people are, unfortunately, the sad expression of an attitude we deal with every day. Mr. Levant paints himself as a great defender of rights like freedom of speech, while telling us that we should not defend our own rights.”

Meanwhile, in related news, we're almost two weeks out from the decision against Ezra in Levant v. Vigna, and the defamatory posts all appear to be there still. An appeal in the works? We'll know in a day or two.

Meanwhile, in somewhat related news, amendments to the Saskatchewan human rights code have been introduced that would abolish the role of the provincial rights tribunal and send cases previously heard by the tribunal to the regular court system. As with the current system, complainants costs would be borne by the province.

Dear Jon...,

Michael Ignatieff figures out a way to link himself to Adscam

Posted: December 11, 2008, 8:12 AM by Jonathan Kay
Jonathan Kay

All the details on Ezra Levant's must-read blog here.

...under certain circumstances, linking to defamatory material is also defamatory.

Now, google-cache results take about a day to appear, so we won't know for awhile if Jonathon Kay found a stinking fish on Full Comment this morning and disappeared it in a panic, or whether he is simply trying to keep Ezra at least a few links distant.

Ezra Strikes Back Again!

On November 10th, the National Post posted on its Full Comment Web blog a column entitled “Ezra Levant: Canada’s free speech enemies to lay Remembrance Day wreath,” which included a link to another Web site that suggested lawyer and human rights activist Richard Warman had posted an offensive item on the Freedomsite website about Senator Anne Cools. The National Post has no evidence to support this allegation against Mr. Warman and it hereby retracts any suggestion that Mr. Warman manufactured any statement about Senator Cools. The National Post apologizes for any embarrassment this has caused Mr. Warman.

When will these guys learn?

PS. Please note once again that linking to defamatory material can itself be defamatory.

Ezra Levant On SLAPP Suits

Today's he's talking them; yesterday,  he was launching them.  And of course everyone wants to support a Canuck against the oppressive Saudis.  But, based on past experience, if anyone could successfully slander a primitive tyrannical dictatorship, its Ezra "defamatory and with malice" Levant. 

In fact if the Devil himself sued Ezra for slander, I suspect the Devil would win.

What Did I Tell You?

Imp writes:

With respect to the Kory Teneycke departure, it is worth noting Richard Madan's CTV report last night that kind of rounds out the picture. The big tidbit there, which I couldn't find anywhere else, that George Soros is suing Quebecor for defamation, presumably for that Ezra Levant column earlier this month which is now nowhere to be found.

What I told you was, if Fox News North hired Ezra they'd be drowning in law-suits before the first broadcast!

Well he's writing for their newspapers again, and now we hear via Don Martin that that "ever-colourful" ""author"" Ezra Levant will have a show on the new network. What I want to know is: will he be forced to step down before he's hired?

PS. The column Fox News North disappeared can still be found on Ezra's website sporting the title "George Schwartz, the Jewish Nazi". I won't link to what may be defamatory material, but if you're out there, Mr. Soros, tell your lawyers they still have some legal disinfectant to apply.

The First Of The Grovelling Apologies

Comes from Kate at SDS, and is echoed here by Kathy Shaidle, the toxic femi-dwarf.

What am I talking about? Two days ago Connie and Mark at FreeDominion made some intensely nasty and possibly libelous allegations re rights activist Richard Warman, which they sourced to Mark Lemire. Note that these accusations are not new (they amount to the claim that Warman "entrapped" Lemire and several other Neo-Nazis into making racist remarks). Furthermore, they have been denied by Warman in the past, and they were judged irrelevant to the origonal CHRC complaint against Mark Lemire.

These allegations were then repeated on Small Dead Animals (guest posted there by Ms. Shaidle), Five Feet of Fury, and elsewhere.

Sometime last evening, prompted by Kinsella, our two ladies realized they might just be facing lawsuits for the rest of their natural lives (longer, if someone keeps up their supply of virgin blood), and so the wretched self-abasement began.

Now, this story got played far and wide in the Righty blogosphere. Prominent folks who were suckered by Lemire and have not yet prostrated themselves include Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

Time to assume the position, gentlemen.

Ironic that two men so concerned with defended their own right to unregulated speech should be caught spreading possibly defamatory material. I am reminded of that story about giving loaded guns to small children

Also, I am sure there were a couple of MSM columns that referenced the same postings. If anyone remembers one and can provide a link, I would appreciate it.

Update: Mark Lemire's argument hinges on his ability to show that he can trace a user-ID that Warman admitted using to post on Freedomsite (a Nazi site), plus a user-ID that Warman claims he did not use, to the IP address 66.185.84.204. However, run this number through google and you find people arguing about junior hockey, dog grooming, and a whole lot of other stuff besides. I ain't no techie, but it looks like a whole whack of people have made use of the IP. How you can make any accusations about Warman from this is a mystery to me.

Another Update: From Mike in Scott Tribe's comments:

According to ARIN reverse lookup, the IP is owned by Rogers Cable:

[...]

As a customer of Rogers myself, I know they rotate their IP to residential users every 3 weeks or so. They also send their residential customers between netblocks - I have had IP addresses from this same 66.xx.xx.xx block, as well as from 72.xx.xx.xx, 74.xx.xx.xx and 99.xx.xx.xx That only evidence that whomever posted was doing so from a Rogers customer computer. Throw in a NAT, and you can’t even tell which computer it was. Consider an open wifi access point and it could have been someone wardriving. None of this so far indicated Warman. It is no evidence at all. Christ I hate amateurs who think IP logs are written in stone.

Richard Warman Does Not Sleep, Richard Warman Waits

...and then Richard Warman strikes.

And so the other shoe finally drops on Ezra Levant, with Warman threatening a lawsuit against him. Meanwhile, Ezra's still standing behind his Nazi re those racists posts on Senator Cools, betting that the attribution of the posts to Warman by Ezra will not make it into the final lawsuit, although they figure prominently in this letter to Ezra written by Warman's lawyer..

Not that I would want to help Ezra out, but this point deserves comment:

I started poking around a little bit about those disparaging comments about Sen. Anne Cools, because they’re obviously a source of embarrassment to Warman – he seems to have complained to the National Post when they attributed those words to him. The Post decided to cut bait and move on – they’ve been Canada’s best champions of free speech, so they deserve a little slack for not digging in. But, unless I’ve missed it, in at least two other legal actions – his defamation suit against Free Dominion, and his human rights complaint against Marc Lemire – Warman has conspicuously omitted any reference to their claims that he made the Anne Cools remarks.

In the case of Free Dominion, Warman's first complaint was filed on September 20th of 2007, well before the Anne Coosl material surfaced on that forum. I am not a legal expert, but have been informed that it would simply be a matter of broadening the suit to add this particular allegation to the original list of defamatory material. We may see this happen within the next few days or weeks.

In any case, an important development. It will now come to be revealed how much of the Speechynista case against Human Rights Tribunals has been founded upon the word of Nazis.

Ezra Levant On Linking To Libel

In his discussion on the statement of claim filed by Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan, Ezra writes:

Warman seeks to establish new defamation law, in the realm of the Internet. In his statement of claim, he wants the courts to hold websites legally responsible not only for what they publish, but for what they link to. By that theory, anyone on the Internet is liable for everyone on the Internet. For you are liable for everyone you link to, and they're liable for everyone they link to (and so are you, too), and so on and so on. It sets up a cascading series of infinite liability.

Fortunately, such a punitive approach to defamation and censorship is not Canadian law. Yet.

The paragraph he is talking about is:

16. These defendants admit that the blogs posted contained a link to the web site of freedominion.ca. These defendants deny that publishing a link amounts to a publication or republication as alleged or at all.

Well, I think both Ezra and our gals' lawyer have got it wrong. I wish I could find a more authoritative source to back up my recollections, but...

In Canada, hyper linking to libel is republishing a libel. Further, if the act of hyper linking can be shown to be hateful, criminal libel penalties can be levied.

Just as an aside, the various Crookes cases are a little bit different. they involve (among other things) trying to sue Michael Geist for maintaining a blogroll that linked to a site that linked to a site containing defamatory material.

Ezra Levant: To Know Him Is To Sue Him

Lawyer on lawyer violence set to break out. Of course, I am cheering for WK.

Interesting how little role "Free Speech" Issues played during the last election campaign. This battle is over, I think. With M-446 dead and a Tory Majority thwarted, all the Speechies have to show for it is their mounting legal bills.

Oh, and by the way. Some good news re real Free Speech threats. Just linking to material that might be considered defamatory won't get you in legal trouble. Down with Wayne Crookes!