Seems to me that falsely accusing someone of promoting harrassment is an actionable offense.
Any opinions?
Indeed it would be actionable if it were false.
I want to find out more about this Directorate of Special Grievances. I want to know if it is indeed the Canadian Forces’ internal version of the Canadian Human Rights Commission – and if Warman is importing to them the same abusive, unfair practices that he perfected at the CHRC.
I want to learn what sort of grievances the Directorate hunts, and what cases Warman himself has investigated. I want to learn their tactics – are they as corrupt, collusive and abusive as the CHRCs? Does Warman file complaints himself, that he then investigates? Does he approach soldiers under a false identity and try to entrap them, as he did at the CHRC? There are plenty of Internet sites catering to Canadian Forces troops. Does Warman use fake names to post provocative comments at places like www.army.ca, to entrap our troops in some "grievance"?
If you’re a soldier or anyone else who has first-hand information about the Directorate of Special Grievances or Richard Warman, please send me your story. I promise to respect any requests for confidentiality or anonymity.
Read the whole thing, and weep. The intent is clear--Ezra is calling for people to follow the man around at his place of work, and is suggesting that he will publish any "dirt" that people send him anonymously. That's not on.
I shall, however, being reminded of St. Ezra's penchant for suing people into silence, remove the word "harass" from my post.
I wonder about pranking Ezra with fake dirt?
Oh, for God's sakes. Don't law societies have anything to say about conduct unbecoming or something?
Actually, I guess not.
*sigh*...Oh, Ezra. Ezra, Ezra, Ezra.
Seems to me you just agreed that claiming Ezra was promoting "harassment" was indeed libel.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have changed your post.
But don't let the truth get in the way of your opinion!
Just Me.. it seems to me that me that you're stifling free speech.
Heh. Nailed it in one, Cameron.
Ha ha Dr. Dawg
You fooled this guppy.
Just Me just libeled Dawg by accusing him of committing libel.
It's actually not much of a joke. Who commits libel most of all? The speechies, that's who.
But thanks for your good wishes, doug! : )
um...
Wouldn't that nazi site stating Lucy was "still in need of execution" be up for a threatening charge under the ccc? I'm thinking maybe so.
Just sayin'
MT
free-speecher
Where exactly does Levant call for Warman to be 'followed around'? Seems to me he is asking for someone with experience being brought up before one of the military commissions, or perhaps working on the other side, to tell him their story.
Ah, language parsing. You can never get enough of it.
If the end effect of this campaign resulted in some wacko following Warman around, why does anyone think that would make a difference? Jurisprudence quite often doesn't.
If I wanted information that could only be gathered by tracking Warman directly, I now know where Warman is employed, courtesy of Ezra Levant.
I really don't get how Dawg's logic is hard to follow:
#1 People don't like Warman or what he does.
#2 He has a new job, where he will be doing, one would assume, what he's qualified to do (see #1)
#3 Given #1 requests for information about #2 could possibly be construed as a threat to Warman's future employment.
Unless the theory is that we're to all chip in for a nice "YAY! You got a new job! Congrats!" present and the requests for info about #2 are just to make sure we buy him something he really needs...
It also seems to me, re-reading the original quote, that it would be quite easy for someone to read into them a sort of ... negative tone:
"same abusive, unfair practices "
"corrupt, collusive and abusive as the CHRCs" (has there been a finding of fact on "corrupt"?)
But I dunno, I personally wouldn't/am not saying that he was doing anything wrong, because, honestly, I can't afford to be reamed in a libel case.
You'll note that if someone were to engage in a similar campaign against Ezra Levant, I doubt the reception would be all that positive. I'm sure Ezra thinks his record is above reproach but I seriously doubt that, given the libel suits he's engaged. Besides, everyone has done something in their lives they'd rather not see made public, and I'm sure Ezra Levant is no exception. How would he feel if someone were calling for people to submit information about him anonymously? Wouldn't he get the feeling that a situation is being created for people to report things about him without proper context, or to outright fabricate things about him? Wouldn't he feel a little chilled or unnerved by all that?
He's certainly crossed a moral line, in my estimation. Whether he, or any of his interlocutors, crosses a legal line, remains to be seen.
I'm not sure some of the laws we already have, such as those addressing online harassment and the fact that how publicly-available information is handled legally in Canada depends on what you do with it, haven't already been violated.
Ah, language parsing. You can never get enough of it.
So now you lefties get to decide what language itself means -- oh wait, that's nothing new, its the old 'code word' gambit.
Seems to me that harassing has a plain enough meaning, if you've ever fallen a couple of months behind on a credit card you know what it means too. Levant didn't even come close to suggesting this of Warman -- he didn't suggest calling at work, following around, etc. He just wants to hear from Canadian Armed Forces members if they have had negative (or maybe positive) experiences with the military version of HRC. Seems to me that 'Dawg' and the rest of you don't like sunlight.
And didn't Warman and his minions follow around, harass, and eventually assault at his (winking) instigation another man because they didn't like what he does for a living. Accusations of hypocracy are a really weak argument, but here it just fits too well.
Wow.. epic fail there with the linkage...
"Seems to me that 'Dawg' and the rest of you don't like sunlight."
And so we now move onto the "making things up out of whole cloth" segment of the day...
Cameron:
Surely you aren't surprised.
No. Not at all.. but the speed of transition was pretty breathtaking nonetheless.
Please note that I'm still not saying that Ezra has done anything wrong... nor am I saying one way or an other if I think that anyone's theories are right
So now you lefties get to decide what language itself means
That's not what I meant at all, you mor...you confused person. It's just that meaning (let alone reality) is a bit broader than what you can determine by parsing.
oh wait, that's nothing new, its the old 'code word' gambit.
No, it isn't. There are "code words" and there are "just words." Learn the difference.
I'm just a little confused why it's noteworthy (even blogwothy) that a Nazi wants someone killed. Are you serious?
That's kind of like "reporting" that a pothead wants someone to get him a bag of Doritos.
Dawg, Warren... since prominent conservative blowhards represent such a such a target-rich environment, why are you bothering with every small-fry anonymous idiot that can use a keyboard. Are there so few hateful losers out there that you need to trawl the sludgeheap?
Crap, for all we know, it's "jadewarr".
Dawg: never asked before, but have you actually seen the video of Warman counseling battery on Ickes?
Nope. Is that the pie-throwing thing?
Dr. D,
Yeah,
I think that's what James is referring to.
MT
free-speecher
Guess links don't work here. Just use altavista 'Warman' Icke site:youtube.com
It's been fun looking into your collective mind. From a request for info, we get harrassment, and then accusations that some unspecified 'Nazi' (Levant? commentors?) wants someone (Warman??) killed. You guys got to get off the budd for a while, the THC buildup is making you paranoid.
The links work just fine. You have to click on them, though. : )
Yes, the "pie throwing thing".
Seriously, how can anyone consider Warman a professional after watching that?
I have always though pieing was a rather poetic form of political protest.
Better than trying to squirt Harper with a penis shaped squirt gun. I wrote about that on my blog and wound up getting a ton of traffic from a "golden showers" site. I still get the occasional hit.
Anyway, that Warman video is from 15 years ago.
Here's the vid. Was Warman employed by the CHRC at the time? Was this part of his official duties?
You're reaching for it, James.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...h?
v=K4eh3Utwf84
No clue, Dawg, and not the point, bigcitylip. If his actions on the video are of the type you expect for a mature lawyer, than tell us. I wouldn't think any lawyer would get away with counselling what amounts to battery.
This is part of his political philosophy of "maximum disruption", and I would imagine the DND would be interested in seeing it.
So let me see if I get this straight: words are dangerous, but throwing something at someone is merely poetic?
James,
OT, but can you remind me where you mentioned Ken McVay and asked me what I thought of his views on free speech? Damned if I can find that exchange...
Dawg: I actually think it was over on Jay Currie's blog (funny how these things work). And he seems to have deleted that post:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h22eq
But while we are on the off-topic topic, I would also be curious as to what you think of Deborah Lipstadt's ideas on free speech:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywycqf
"I do not believe that laws against denial are strategically wise. They tend to make martyrs of the accused, arousing sympathy for them. They also render the item which has been outlawed ‘forbidden fruit’. Thus it becomes more enticing and appealing to certain segments of society – disaffected youth, for example.
Most importantly, however, genocide denial laws suggest that we do not have the facts and the documentation to prove that these people are liars. We defeated David Irving in court not with law but with facts."
Commenting by HaloScan
