Calling Steyn smug only proves you've never talked to him or met him. It also proves that you, like Mr. Kinsella, take yourself way too seriously.
Maybe he'll shake your hand, too.
The right-wing frothers are out in force tonight apparently.
The mystery about the Bell IP was probably- I suspect- this:
Part of the defense Lemire is trying to set up is that CHRC investigators entrapped them by posting hateful messages on his site and then used that very evidence to substantiate the complaints.
In fact, while Steacy and Warman did make posts, what they would do is quote a post already on the site and add a comment like " good luck with that".
At worst they are guilty of republishing hate already posted by hitting the "quote" button and adding their comments. That's why Warman admitted they were " problematic" but that's not entrapment - nor did they rely on those posts because the hate was already there.
If, however, they could show that one or more of the original post was CHRC generated then they might be able to argue entrapment - particularly if one of the posts formed part of the complaint. That's why such a fuss was made of the Cools thing.
My guess is that Steacy had that IP at one point when he posted as Jadewarr and Lemire's logs showed some else, with the same IP posted to the site as well - likely original hate - at or near the same time.
Of course, just like the Cools post, they were sure that Steacy or someone connected to the CHRC made those posts. Ta Dah ! The smoking gun! Except turns out it wasn't.
I think the mistake they made with the Bell IP and the Cools thing is they applied todays' protocols - where IPs are assigned for a good length of time- and thought the same would be true in 2003. It wasn't.
My own research has shown that between the Sept 5 Cools post and the known dates of RW posts ( Nov. 11/15/23) some one named Carolyn Bxxx left a post at a dog grooming site with the same IP.
On Nov. 12 - between the "known" RW dates -Ethan posted some pictures of his watch on a watch lovers site and on Nov. 20 Nelson Gxxxx left a comment on a fishing lodge's guest book from the same IP.
To top it off Mel made a post to the above noted dog grooming site on the very same day RW was visiting Lemire ( Nov. 11).
In fact, between Sept 23/03 and Jan 1/04 - a little over 3 months- 3 different people posted to that dog grooming site.
Back in those days it seems that IPs - or at least some of them- were passed around more than a 2 bit hooker during fleet week.
You shore kin write, Dawg. Nice one. Very chuckly opening. The best part.
"Maybe he'll shake your hand, too."
I'd be honored to shake Mr. Steyn's hand. Perhaps I'll have the chance after he finishes with the free speech champions and poseurs of tolerance he's dealing with now.
Correction-
It appears that the significance of the Bell IP is that Jadewar actually made a post from that IP.
Turns out the innocent owner of the IP in 2006 was using an unprotected wifi.
My laptop, although it's less than 15 meters away from my wifi, has a nasty habit of piggybacking on to the unprotected net of the dude down the hall.
My guess is that's what happened to Jadewar and now some poor innocent woman is about to be subject to the wrath of the wingnut-o-sphere.
Nbob, I remember back in the early 2000's I was having problems with my comptuer and a buddy wanted to log on using Apple Remote Desktop. We found it near impossible to set up because Sympatico was re-leasing the IPs every 15 minutes or so...
reasonable, civil, pleasant, wrong-headed....
Hey, three out of four from a dangerous pinko ain't bad.
Leaving aside the well-worn ideological divide here, the aesthetics were interesting and should give both sides pause about how important this all is to the future of civilization as we know it and whether both sides are guilty of fueling the drama. It wasn't just the "fascists" who were grey, hardly anybody in that half-empty, spiritless room was on the early side of forty. The ill-advised "hold our noses" devil's pact the free-speechers have made with these thugs is balanced by the absurd alarmist rants from Warren & co with their all-too-desperate efforts to pretend a marginal fringe of losers is a serious concern. (BTW, Dr Dawg, seeing as you are handing out awards for insufferability...) I remember thinking that, if these guys think they are going to challenge freedom and democracy and cause havoc in the streets, they had better not forget to bring along some portable toilets.
I agree there was no "smoking gun", but there was no vindication either. Don't forget that this was just a small part of a much longer hearing and we have no idea yet what or who the Chair believes. But whatever the decision, it will only apply to this particular case. The broader issue remains that, whatever one thinks of S 13, hate speech is criminal in nature and should not be investigated or enforced by an unsupervised, self-perpetuating bureaucracy that affords few of the many time-honoured legal protections afforded anyone accused of a criminal offence. Warman v Lemire isn't going to resolve that.
Good to see you.
Actually, Peter, my understanding is that this is the final sputterings of a hearing for which decisions have already been issued.
bcl:
Whatever is in the Tribunal's head, I hope for his sake he hasn't prepared and given a decision to the Commission, even in draft. That's grounds for a slam-dunk appeal. Does he want to do all this again?
I doubt this very much. There are to be more hearings in June. This thing ain't over till it's over.
Peter: "The ill-advised "hold our noses" devil's pact the free-speechers have made with these thugs is balanced by the absurd alarmist rants from Warren & co with their all-too-desperate efforts to pretend a marginal fringe of losers"
That is pretty much the best summation of this entire matter. Congrats.
Dawg: thanks for the balance, it was indeed needed after wading through the comments over at Kate's. "Holding our noses" indeed...
You have to admit that there is something exceedingly civilised about this whole deal. Warring sectaries, one side characterised overwhelmingly by illiberal authoritarianism, pernicious misanthropy and a withering chauvinism (I'll not address its fundamentally deceptive nature for the time being) coming together like this and reducing a divisive and potentially chaos-inducing issue to a dull banality all the while humanising and marginalising the main characters involved in the process.
I've lived in chaotic places in the world, and I gotta say, there's no place like home.
it seems to me that you believe entrapment is a perfectly acceptable mode of law enforcement, and that the law does not apply equally to all people, and that people should be prosecuted for what other people write on their web sites (say for instance, if I wrote something hateful right here, you could be taken to court).
Because that is the only way to conclude "No solid indication that CHRC investigators had done anything wrong at all."
Where has "entrapment" been proved in court?
Seems to me the problem is people believing things without evidence (which is really odd for law-an-order types). That's not exactly an astonishing assertion at this point, but it's still significant.
Ti-Guy, the problem is not whether entrapment against Commission staff has or has not been proven. The problem is that, unlike with the police, in civil and administrative law there is no concept of entrapment to define and limit their activities.
C'mon, are you really going to tell me you have absolutely no concerns about a former Commission staffmember becoming their number one (and almost exclusive and 100% successful) complainant and educating his successors in how to trace and investigate sites anonymously? Look what hoops Lemire had to go through to get them to answer questions about their procedures and methods. Do you think a police officer would last two minutes in court if he refused to answer such questions from defence counsel? The tax authorities? Why go through the machinations of a hearing at all?
Peter,
95 per cent of the testimony the CHRC gave yesterday was identical to same as what was given months ago. I've read the transcripts of those and there is almost nothing I didn't already know. Everybody that has followed the story new that Warman et al used pseuds to get access to these websites, for example. The other five per cent turned out to be irrelevant.
As for the 100% success rate. If you go after 100% Nazis for hate speech, then you're likely to be successful most of the time, no?
C'mon, are you really going to tell me you have absolutely no concerns...
Right now, I'm far more concerned about beliefs based on evidence and rightwing deception, something the free speech warriors might want to spend more time focusing on rather than their usual hysterical speculation and conspiracies, which is not even entertaining anymore.
There's a post above, Peter, commenting on the poor reporting in The National Post. That concerns me a hell of a lot more as an issue of freedom of expression than some raging headcase who doesn't like the idea of being told to shut up.
It's simply a matter of priorities.
Hmm, do you think there is room for a good old Canadian compromise there? We'll lay off the HRCs if you'll agree they can only go after Nazis?
The compromise I'd like to see would have to involve more enlightened leadership on the part of "conservatives" and free speech warriors to challenge the grotesque defamation and deception that they overlook all the time while embracing the corrupt analysis featured in works such as America Alone and Liberal Fascism....or indeed any one of the works featured here. A free speech warrior-led examination of the funding of this so-called marketplace of ideas would also be most welcome.
I've drawn a line in the sand on this stuff and I don't care if anyone doesn't like it. If anyone thinks that's liberally fascislicious, I invite them to haul me before a tribunal.
"If you go after 100% Nazis for hate speech, then you're likely to be successful most of the time, no?"
The mere fact that anyone would consider going after ANY speech is frightening to say the least. Plus, characterizing an emotion, "hate", as something that must be criminalized is lunacy.
Why is it these "hate" investigators haven't gone after any islamic websites? There are plenty that spew "hate" on a daily basis.
darwin, Criminal Code much?
With all the hate out there I find it an amazing fact, that not one
case has actually had enough hate to merit criminal charges but enough
merit to award Mr.Warman with TAX FREE cash for damages. I need some
of that hate.
I need some of that hate.
Go for it! You can start here.
"The mere fact that anyone would consider going after ANY speech is frightening to say the least. Plus, characterizing an emotion, "hate", as something that must be criminalized is lunacy."
Don't forget the 100% conviction rate, the "likely to cause" loophole that's big enough to drive a mac truck through, and that every single defendant so far has been white (as you pointed out, there are some pretty horrible Islamic websites out there).
I keep hearing about this 100% conviction rate. That's pretty much a propagandistic fiction in context, isn't it?
Oh, who cares.
"Out there" is a pretty big place.
Hosted in Canada, by a Canadian ISP, with it's servers in Canada?
Or do you mean "on the internets that I keep hearing about"?
"I keep hearing about this 100% conviction rate. That's pretty much a propagandistic fiction in context, isn't it?"
No. The 100% conviction rate is under S13.1 for the federal CHRC.
The 100% rate is true. But for the most part you have to understand that the CHRC do a fairly well defined job and don't really fuck around. Assuming you support the LAW as it stands, the guys Warman targets go out way beyond the bounds of Free Dominion for example (and its significant that he's suing FreeD rather than taking them to a tribunal).
And the thing with the LAW being interpreted to cover Levant and Steyn, the chances are a million to one against. Book it: the HRCs will decide that their stuff is revolting but protected by journalistic privilege.
But I suspect they came close enough to the edge where the LAW applies as to trigger an investigation. Which fact I don't have an objection to.
Congrats on being Mark Steyn's reader of the day
Dawg,
I always love a good sprinkling of irrelevant ad hominems. "Corpulent". "Cowboy boots". "Cowboy hat". Yee-haw! Let's gettim! Dang, my neck's gittin red just thinkin' about it!
I can truly sleep better at night knowing that you, Warren and Indiana Jones are making the world safe from the Nazi hordes.
Jeremy:
Sorry if I sound impatient, but please look up "ad hominem."
Admittedly, a more corporeal take on the "against the man" fallacy.
But if a person's opinion is negated or ridiculed on the basis of a childishly irrelevant fact - girth, fashion sense - then you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
(To be fair, I'm always disappointed to see right-wingers like Steyn call attention to Michael Moore's ample poundage. There are much better reasons to mock the man.)
If I get a "smoking gun" picture of you wearing a red shirt, does this mean you are a commie? If you shook Mark Steyn's hand (oooo, gotcha!) can I call you a racist?
Is this what the left has come to? Guilt by hand-to-hand contact and crappy boots?
Commenting by HaloScan
