document.write("

Bark!

According to the statement of claim she permitted the post and comments to remain. I have absolutely no sympathy.

Whether she made the remarks personally or not is really of no importance whatsoever. What is important is the degree to which she did or didn't facilitate their publication and/or removal.

This didn't come out of the blue. She, like the idiots on FreeDominion, have been defiantly courting this disaster for months and yes, they had the opportunity to avoid it. She was served a notice of libel in February. She could have avoided this lawsuit. She chose not to. That too, is in the statement of claim.

If you have a blog with a comments section, you're a publisher. If you're not prepared for that kind of responsibility, then don't have a blog with a comments section.
RealityBites | 04.10.08 - 8:59 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - I agree KM made some bad decisions, but is it really the same as the actual libel done by the others?

Unless I've got this wrong, while she was away, the offending post was made by Shaidle and then there was a retraction the next day while Kate was still away. (Shaidle was shitting her pants about it.) So shouldn't that put KM in the clear (as far as the actual post goes)?

More than anything what concerns me is the comments -- I agree that anything libelous needs to be gotten rid of ASAP, but I don't want a precedent set of someone getting sued for something a commenter says. If that happens, it's only a matter of time before people start \"planting\" comments, and away we go.

I normally don't check the comments of posts any further than 48 hours back -- lots of potential for havoc there. Ultimately it would mean comment moderation at all times, which is something I find onerous and not conducive to open discussion.

Trust me, I detest every one of these wanks and wouldn't be defending McMillan if I didn't think her situation had implications for the rest of us. (Although I was kind of joking about sending $$$.) I'm not sympathetic with any of them, they are all idiots, but McMillan's suit has the potential to impact all of us.
JJ | Homepage | 04.10.08 - 9:33 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ This is an engineered suit. All those people have been baiting the situation for months knowing full well Warman would take the bait.

Like I said, it's too good to be true and this whole thing is engineered to rid this country of hate crimes laws so people can speak with impunity.

So we can all be good god fearing little assholes and speak of hate because it's the cheapest way to an imaginary heaven.
Bruce | Homepage | 04.10.08 - 10:38 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ We might not ever know the full story if Kate was given a chance to pull the stuff down from her site before this came out. She likes to \"keep her powder dry\" and not spill the beans. Loose lips sink ships, and all that. If she did have a chance I feel a little less sympathy for her. As it is now though, I think us blogging folk have to stick together or we'll all go down with her gopher infested ship.
Saskboy | Homepage | 04.10.08 - 11:17 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ She and the others were given a notice of libel back in February. That gives them the chance to remove the libel and issue an apology. There's no mystery at all about whether or not she had the chance to pull it and avoid the lawsuit. She did.

No one gets sued for libel without notice and an opportunity to put things right. You don't have to worry about checking every post indefinitely. You DO have to step up and take responsibility when it's pointed out to you.

The retraction itself was worthless. Going from stating a ridiculous but obscene accusation was a fact to an alleged fact is meaningless. What IS important is that the accusation came from two notorious Nazi liars who themselves were smart enough to make sure they never made it in public.

I just don't see anything here that a normal blogger, one who doesn't allow herself to be a Nazi pawn, has to fear.
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 3:47 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ No sympathy for McMillan. Her blog is getting pulled from the Blogging Tories blogroll today.
Sheila Carlton | 04.11.08 - 4:14 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I looked about an hour ago, and SDA was still in the blogroll. But you are the second person to make this claim Sheila.

Good for Stephen Taylor for pulling the plug on her *finally*!

He would have done better to do it way before the lawsuit happened, so it wouldn't look like he only did it to mitigate his own liability.

JJ: If you read the last several posts I've made at my place, you will see I'm sort of on the fence and feeling very ambigous about the situation and people involved.

I've posted about the issue at length because I have some experience with a similar situation and I was given the opportunity to ask questions and learn from one of the best lawyers in Canada specializing in this kind of law. This lawyer was paid for by CanWest, so I got the $500.00/hr legal advice for free! $\"\"$

In the States, Truth is an ultimate defence against any libel. Not so in Canada. If you want to plead \"fair comment\" you have to ALSO prove that you didn't engage in the fair comment with a malicious intent.

That's the lynchpin in the defence being proffered (at least by Levant)

If you do not post something with malicious intent, or you do not allow something to stay on your blog with malicious intent, you are safe.. and so are other bloggers.

But people really need to wrap their heads around the malicious intent aspect of this.

Even IF the defendents prove what they have alledged and been sued for... in the sense that the comments are true (and after reading Buckets of Grewals analysis I am really not sure they can) They have a further obligation to prove that they were not being malicious... If they can't satisfy that -- they lose.

It's just the quirk of our legal system which makes us different from the US.
MWW | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 5:39 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Hippy, I'm sure others have mentioned this, but the precedent--being responsible for libelous comments on your websiter--has already been set, and not by Warman.

Visit myblagh and read about the fellow at Section 15. If you want to slip some money to a legal fight, thats the one thats worth it.
bigcitylib | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 5:54 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Bruce - Easy there, sweetie, you know I don't like KKKate or her overflowing toilet of a blog, but this suit just strikes me as Wrong.

If she had a chance to remove libelous comments and links and didn't do it, I'm a lot less sympathetic, but still, comments and links? I don't know... I linked to that same stuff myself (albeit for different reasons). It just seems over the top.

Ironically, this doesn't have anything to do with hate speech. That's an area where you could find a cornucopia of examples every day on SDA and a lot of other RW blogs. (Though Shaidle is a far worse offender than SDA IMO.)

Levant, Shaidle and the Fourniers can take a running jump AFAIC. But I'm just not so sure about the suit against SDA, and when in doubt, I err on the side of defense.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 7:28 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Saskboy - That is my feeling exactly. To be honest, I absolutely hate the idea of lawyers fucking with the blogosphere -- it's one place where ideas flow reasonably freely and bringing lawyers into it can only screw things up.

That doesn't mean libel should be allowed, but before the law comes in, it should be a slamdunk case (like the other 5 named), not something as nebulous as linking or something a commenter said.

I'm kind of inclined to agree with Bruce that they might have purposely brought this on themselves, especially if, as RB pointed out in the top comment, they all had ample time to clean up. Otherwise, they're just so absolutely fucking stupid I'm surprised they can find their way to their computers. Obviously that makes me a lot less sympathetic, but still...

I don't like any of this.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 7:41 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"The retraction itself was worthless.\" Is it? I know you can't unring a bell and all that (I think I even did a post about this very thing), but legally a retraction isn't a defense against libel? Wow, that is good to know. Not that I libel anyone... as far as I know.

\"What IS important is that the accusation came from two notorious Nazi liars who themselves were smart enough to make sure they never made it in public.\"

Played, these people were totally played by Lemire et al. That makes me inclined to lean away from \"purposely engineered\" in favour of \"cataclysmically retarded\". Although, I suppose it could be a combination of the two. (And hopefully I didn't libel anyone with that.)

RB, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the other 5 defendants in this -- they're getting what's coming to them. I am just wavering on SDA because it seems like a weaker case, and in such cases I always default to *defend*.

Although, as we talked about the other day, if there's a libelous statement made it should be a given that it gets nuked. If this suit from RW is just what they wanted to happen, I have no sympathy for any of them, they can all take a flying leap.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 7:58 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ As the founding author at a group blog, and the owner of the domain, count me among those who have no sympathy for McMillan in this. If the courts ultimately let her off the hook because she didn't actually post the offending material, so be it. But she chose to turn her megaphone over to Shaidle and it's not as if Shaidle was an unknown quantity at the time. If I made judgement calls like that, I'd expect to pay a price for them.

Whatever happened to the idea that responsibility rolls uphill? That if you're in charge and something happens on your watch, you wear it? If that applies to politicians, corporate managers and traditional media moguls, it ought to apply to bloggers too.
pogge | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:04 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I'm guessing that some of the people involved want this because they are attention-seekers.

Others are being played for saps and will lose their homes and savings. To me it's a bit like the Darwin awards. Death isn't funny, but when someone is so willfully boneheaded as to attempt to use a blowtorch as a nailfile, well...

I don't think the fact that you've linked to some of this stuff yourself is an issue, JJ. Intent counts a lot. It's like media reporting on Lukiwski's comments. The CBC doesn't need to worry that by reporting them they'll be charged with hate speech.
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 8:06 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ \"but legally a retraction isn't a defense against libel?\"

A retraction and apology can be shown to a court to claim that the defendant attempted to mitigae the damages being alleged.

Also, the reason the retraction at Kate's place by Kathy does not hold water is that there was no apology to Warman, only an apology to readers.

The retraction and quasi-apology were mostly rationalizations by Kathy about why she made the mistake that she did.

Usually the wording for retractings is boilerplate. And the boilerplate I have seen in the past in the \"regret the error\" part of MSM papers did not seem to be followed at all by Kathy.

I once had a discussion with Kathy and Kate about libel laws back in 2005. It became very clear to me VERY quickly that neither of them had an effing clue about what constituted libel.

For instance, kate seemed to think that repeating her own words back at her over a period of time (gathering them all into one place to showcase) was a form of libel. Kathy did not seem to understand the concept that framing an issue into a question, or as a personal opinion without malicious intent, could protect people from libel suits.

I knew that sooner or later these two were going to get sued by somebody. And now it's happened.
MWW | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:08 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Sheila - Funny you mention that. I was looking for SDA last night on the BTs blogroll and couldn't find it, but there was a post still on the aggregator so I figured it was just me.

Many of us have wondered for months how Stephen Taylor can justify keeping SDA on the BTs blogroll. To remove SDA now doesn't look anything but self-serving. So, no, I'm not terribly impressed with Taylor for finally doing the right thing... when it looked like his own ass might have some liability.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:11 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW - I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be that there was *lots & lots* of malicious intent -- if by \"malicious intent\" the law means, denigrating and BSing about someone and trying to damage their reputation. If \"malicious intent\" means the intent to hurt someone's financial opportunities, career etc.... there might even be something there, too.

As I've said in the other comments, I have no, zero zip sympathy for the other 5 -- they were stupid, they were played, they believed what they were told by one of the least reliable sources possible, and they acted on it by posting the info online. I hope they get taken to the cleaners, especially Shaidle, who is one of the most vicious, toxic pigs in the blogosphere. (Levant is just a drama queen, and the Fourniers, well, I'm leaning towards \"dumbfucks\").

Not that KKKate isn't equally vicious and toxic and deserving of several magnitudes of asskickings. But in this particular case, I'm not so sure.

My opinion might change, of course, as I find out more about what's going on. I'll go and read your posts on it when I finish here.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:28 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ BCL - Mark Francis' case is definitely more deserving of support, no doubt about it. If I were thinking about donating to someone's defense, it would be his.

My remark about donating to SDA's defense fund was facetious, I don't even know if she has a defense fund. I just said it to illustrate my point. I have lots of other things that need my financial attention before SDA!!!
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:33 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ pogge - Yeah but she lets Shaidle guest post on a regular basis and up until that point, no problem. While I'd agree that handing a megaphone to Shaidle is a bad move in any event, McMillan had no reason to suspect that it would result in any more than business as usual.

Or did she? That's the question that's starting to dawn on me now, perhaps belatedly since it looks like everyone else clued in a lot sooner.

If this was all \"engineered\" so they could get sued, go to court and *defeat* Warman, then I have zero sympathy for any of them. But when I am in doubt, as I was yesterday, I automatically default to defending someone.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:39 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"I'm guessing that some of the people involved want this because they are attention-seekers.\"

Oh oh oh! Wait don't tell me let me guess... starts with \"E\"? Ends with \"A\"?

It is kind of like the Darwins, RB. I think the Fourniers are screwed... WTF was he thinking when he posted that thing, he must be a complete and total idiot. Nazis told him it was true, so....?? Egads.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:43 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW - I am not surprised that they're getting sued, only that it didn't happen sooner. There's been plenty of fodder.

That said, McMillan's case concerns me largely because of the effect it might have on other big blogs (not mine, obviously). I could be wrong -- it seems easy enough to avoid libel -- but if someone was out to entrap someone else... I don't know. I just don't like the road this seems to be going down.

Aside from that, It's interesting that someone with as high-traffic and controversial a blog as SDA wouldn't take time to familiarize themselves with libel law. Especially given the nutty commenters!! Holy shit!
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 8:55 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ If a newspaper published a libelous column, I'd guess that the editor and publishers would be sued, not just the columnist. So, yeah, I don't see why it's surprising that a blog administrator would be named in an analogous lawsuit.
Chester Scoville | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 9:03 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Chet - I agree, that part is pretty straightforward. If Shaidle published something on SDA, Kate is ultimately responsible for it. I thought Shaidle's retraction was sufficient, but apparently not, so in that case, I have no sympathy.

What disturbed me initially about the SDA part of this wasn't the post itself as much as comments and links. Although... as long as comments are watched for libel (esp. huge threads with lots of whackos commenting like SDA's), it should be fairly easy to avoid. If one wants to. (This is what's starting to change my mind a little about being supportive of SDA.)

Maybe I'm worrying over nothing, I hope so.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 9:28 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, it's hard to know where the attention-seeking starts and stops, or for that matter what the motives are on the other side.

Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins remind me of a news story I read the other day. Chap wanted to rob a convenience store. While waiting for the store to empty of customers, he filled out and left a job application form with his real name and a relative's phone number.

In this case, in the other case Warman has filed against FD, and the CHRC complaint that was withdrawn, they have gone out of their way to damage their own case as much as they possibly could.

For people like Levant, Kinsella and Warman, these fights are taking place on their playing field. They're lawyers and likely have a pretty good idea of just what they can and can't get away with when they write. And if they go too far, they're STILL lawyers and can, if necessary, represent themselves.

As a long-time observer of FD, one pattern that emerges time and time again is that most of them (and the Fourniers in particular) are idealists - a word I dislike using to describe those with such loathsome ideals. They seem to have little understanding of how things work. They don't understand politics or law. And they vastly overestimate how representative of Canadian thought they are
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 10:32 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I left a comment last evening, and it got sucked into the sock vortex...

lol.
Anyway. Comments: I know that its a pain in the ass making people register to leave a comment. But With that system the trolls don't even try (although I know you like to play sometimes). The comments are resident on our own server, so if new comments appear in the sidebar we can spot them instantly. Over at \"the other place\" that Prole and I used to blog, they didn't have it set up that way.

Spammers/bots are less now too with the captcha we set up.
pale | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:38 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ \"are idealists - a word I dislike using to describe those with such loathsome ideals. They seem to have little understanding of how things work. They don't understand politics or law. And they vastly overestimate how representative of Canadian thought they are\" --

Yep. That's nail, bang dead on.

In reading Ezra's post yesterday and the 100s of comments resulting from his and the other defendants blogging - it seems like they all think they are going to be able to walk into the courtroom and find a job who finds the HRC to be odious and Section 13 to be repugnant.

They will not listen to anybody who will tell them that even if a Judge felt that way -- it's not the job of a judge to rule in a civil case on the basis of that private opinion. Judges have to uphold the laws of Canada which (unfortunately for the Speechies) includes Section 13 and the HRC as an instrument of Section 13.

Ezra has stated that he is going to use the situtation to \"put the HRC\" on trial itself. This is really stupid -- and I think it will amount to a pyhric defeat across the board.

The thing is, The Defendants are playing a very different game than Warman is. It looks like Warman has been succesful in just about every case he has brought before the HRC and he has also been succesful in the past with libel litigation ala Fromm. He doesn't seem to care what a bunch of bloggers are saying about him. He's only concerned with how the court is going to intrpret and judge his actions.

OTOH, The defendants are playing this as if the court of public opinion is more important than the actual court.
MWW | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:51 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Job, sgould be Judge... sorry
MWW | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:51 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - Warman's motives are fairly clear -- he's been maligned by these people for months on end. Can't say I blame him.

\"In this case, in the other case Warman has filed against FD, and the CHRC complaint that was withdrawn, they have gone out of their way to damage their own case as much as they possibly could.\"

In a way, it's too bad that CHRC complaint last summer didn't proceed. It might have taught them something, and they may have avoided all this. Instead, all they learned was that they could start 90page threads insulting and threatening a complainant with impunity, and they went overboard.

What will happen if Warman wins, I wonder? Can he win against some of them but not others, or is it a package deal?
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 11:57 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Pale - I'm starting to think my concern about this might be kind of over-reacting. I just didn't like the sound of it right away, and the more I read about it yesterday, the less I liked it.

People suing each other, just seems to me to be a whole lotta bullshit. (Although given the months of abuse Warman's had heaped on him, I can see his point.)
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 12:06 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW - One of the things I find irritating about all this is how it's being framed as a \"free speech\" issue -- it's not. Libel and slander are not free speech. Free speech is essentially about the truth, in particular speaking truth to power, and the responsibility not to slander or libel is part of it.

I haven't read Ezra's post on this. How he intends to use this to shut down HRCs is beyond me, but I'm not a lawyer.

Other than him, I'm not surprised the rest of them are clueless as to how the law works. Libel, as I understand it anyway, isn't about HRCs or hate speech. The only connection is that Warman worked for the HRC(?), other than that, it's a different issue.

I must agree with RB's comment above that some of these people are real \"idealists\" who have no clue what a small segment of the population they represent (even among conservatives). It's almost sad.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 12:17 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ,

My understanding of the M. Francis thing is that the BC court tossed it but it is being appealed. Still lots of legal bills for Mark, though.

Also, MWW on Warman: Warman does not blog, talks very little to the MSM, and when he answers your emails, keeps things very brief. You're absolutely right. Levant et al want to win in the court of public opinion; Warman wants to win in court.
bigcitylib | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 12:39 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ What baffles me is that this case has as much to do with HRCs and section 13 as someone robbing a McDonald's has to do with trans fats in fast foods. The only connection is that Lemire made the accusation in an HRC hearing and apparently couldn't be sued for libel.

If the eventual ruling were to be that no libel took place of any kind and that everything said about Warman was not only true, but said in kindness to help him, it would have no impact - zero - none - on the CHRC, the tribunals, the Human Rights Act or anything but whether or not Warman is a nice guy who would never make that post.
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 1:03 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ BCL - Maybe a lot of people didn't realize, as I didn't, that Mark still needs assistance and will be more likely to shoot him a few bucks. So that much at least is something good that might come out of this. Thanks again for the info.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 1:16 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ In a very early episode of All in the Family, Archie was involved in a fender-bender and wanted to take it to court. It turned out the witnesses (or possibly the other party) were a group of nuns in a station wagon. Whereupon his lawyer advised him of an old legal principle, namely that you can't win in court against a station wagon full of nuns.

From the little I understand of all this IP nonsense, it seems unlikely in the extreme that it can be proven that Mr. Warman made that post.

Even if Bell or Rogers (I forget which ISP it was) could state definitely that the IP address belonged exclusively to Mr. Warman at that time there would be a problem. (

Because it would then come down to whether or not the Stormfront logs could be believed or might have been altered. And at that point it would come down to the credibility of Mark Lemire and Bernard Klatt.

There's an old legal principle. You can't win in court with a Nazi as your star witness. They are simply not credible witnesses.

I have no knowledge of libel law at all, but if the accusation made against Mr. Warman is libellous under Canadian law if it can't be proven true, then I think this would be an open and shut case.
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 1:18 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - The HRC connection baffles me also, but it might be because Warman made a HRC complaint against FD not long after the Gentes complaint last summer (didn't he? As I said earlier, I totally didn't follow this, I was so disgusted by how they responded to the Gentes complaint.)

Anyway -- then they started investigating and found out about the Lemire complaint. Then they started getting info from him, then they published that Cools post and that's where it all went sideways. At least that is my interpretation of what happened -- tell me if there's anything I'm missing.

The extremely tenuous \"connection\" to the HRC is why they're positioning this as a free speech issue, which irks me to no end. Libel is not free speech.

Sometimes I get the feeling that these people think they should be able to say anything they want about anyone, whether it's true or not, with impunity.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 1:34 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"There's an old legal principle. You can't win in court with a Nazi as your star witness. They are simply not credible witnesses.\"

The question is, WTF would possess these people to trust info from the nitwits at stormfront? OMG, it boggles $\"\"$

Did you read Buckets? According to his analysis, it could have been almost anyone (on that ISP) who made that post. They will not be able to prove Warman made it (primarily because he probably didn't -- if you want to find evidence of hate on a site like SF, there's really no need for any provocateuring.)

4 of them are probably fucked. I'm still not so sure about sda.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 1:44 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Warman didn't make (at least not to my knowledge) an HRC complaint against them. He did make another statement of claim for libel though, based on the kind of stuff they've said about him.

Since the current one offers a direct accusation of something, rather than things that might be passed off as unflattering but non-libellous opinions, it seems much stronger to me.

I read Buckets's IP research (filtered through BCL). I have a great deal of confidence in the things he says. Unlike most people on the net (myself included), he rarely posts without something unique and concrete to contribute.

In terms of being fucked, it's not so much the verdict as the process that results in being fucked. Finding a lawyer, convincing the lawyer you can pay your bill. Travel costs if it goes forward. Everyone will be out thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars before a witness is heard.

Check out this article to see what these people are facing: http://www.thestar.com/News/arti.../article/187854
RealityBites | 04.11.08 - 2:31 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I just read your link, wow. I am somewhat familiar with how much criminal cases can run, but I didn't know civil actions (which I think libel is?) could be that steep. And that's not even counting the damages awarded to the plaintiff!!

So what got them started on this Warman character? I mean before he filed the first suit. They must have been yakking about him, for him to find reason to file a libel suit.

And if it didn't start with an HRC complaint, now I'm really baffled -- how do the wingnuts connect this to the HRC? Was RW working for the HRC when he was (allegedly!!) posting at stormfront?

This is starting to spin out of control. Some of these people have no idea of the kind of shit storm that's around the corner. Can they really be that stupid?

\"it's not so much the verdict as the process that results in being fucked.\"

Exactly. This is an age old legal strategy, just bleed them dry. Wow.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 3:11 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I made a comment at Mark's place about the kind of toll this thing takes on people. If you've never been involved in something like this, you will never understand the feelings involved.

When I was served with a writ, along with my editor, the publisher, the Newspaper I wrote for and CanWest itself -- The first casualty was in the silence on the issue that was commanded by the lawyer representing us, and paid for with CanWest's money.

Next came the admonition that I shouldn't discuss the case with *anybody*. The lawyer said that as long as my Dad and husband would agree to not talk about it with anybody, I could discuss it with them.

It seemed like after the writ was served the Chief and Council went out of their way to do really unethical stuff... Knowing that I could not comment in response or alert the community to it.

Then the lawyering started with sitdown meetings between the CanWest Lawyer and the band's lawyer. And ultimately I figured out, after about a year that I had been dealt a bad hand by the process, which I was steadfastly still remaining silent about on advice of counsel. It came as quite the shock to realize that the lawyer who has promised that this would be \"taken to the wall\" - had made a deal with the band's lawyers that so long as I would not be published anymore -- they would not proceed with the lawsuit.

No apology was issued and no retraction was done either. It was all just left hanging.

So in essence the SLAPP worked. Even though there appears to be no journalist in Canada who is regularly commenting on the affairs of their Indian band (with the exception of the Mohawk News) Canwest felt that it was bettet to save money than to fight.

I've already posted about this -- and suggested strongly for the sake of the defendants that they don't make the same mistake I did, which was to rely on a CanWest lawyer to act in my interests.

But I doubt any of them will listen.

The feeling of helplessness that Mark has written about with respect to his writer's block is an absolutely terrible thing to experience. And the comment that \"it's the process\" that gets you, is absolutely right.

This thing will probably not be over for 18 months to a year. The defendants are in for a bumpy bumpy ride. Made even more bumpy by the fact that they are not getting or taking legal advice with respect to their actions post-writ being served.
MWW | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 4:56 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW - Your story is a real cautionary tale. You always have to get someone acting specifically in your interests, or get thrown under the bus. (But you know that now.)

\"Made even more bumpy by the fact that they are not getting or taking legal advice\"

OMG, could they be stupid enough not to have retained lawyers by now? They need to stop playing \"free speech warrior\" and realize they're not dealing with an HRC complaint, this is libel, serious shit.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 6:44 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ This is the single most uninformed thread I have seen on the Warman/CHRC topic to date. Congratulations.
Blazingcatfur | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 9:15 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Blazing - I haven't been following this thing at all until a couple of days ago. All I know is there's a libel suit, and who's involved, and I read the SoC. That's it. If you want to fill in the blanks, I'd appreciate it.

Uninformed as I am, I don't like the idea of litigation in the blogosphere, and I really don't like the sound of the suit against SDA.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 9:27 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I think that there are a few points here that seem to have been overlooked.

First of all Levant is a \"libel lawyer\". If anyone knows what you can get away with it SHOULD be him. So for him to keep on baiting Warman indicates he probably knows something the commenters here don't. He may be somewhat obnoxious to many but I don't think he is stupid.

As for the others,if they were served libel notices earlier this year you would THINK they would have gotten legal advice. No matter how arrogant/confident/stupid/laid back you are a legal threat is taken seriously by most people. The other defendants MAY be a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. So again, I think that by ignoring the libel notices, it shows that they know something we don't.

I don' think its a slam dunk for anyone especially Warman. And as for donations I understand that the blogosphere has donated a HUGE amount.

I'm not a blogger but if I was ,whether it be left ro right, I'd be extremely worried. The Sask. agregator has already shut down because we was worried of a lawsuit.This not only could, but will affect ALL of you regardless of the outcome.

horny Toad
Horny Toad | 04.11.08 - 9:47 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ HT - Thanks for the info. That makes a little more sense of things.

\"First of all Levant is a \"libel lawyer\". If anyone knows what you can get away with it SHOULD be him.\"

That's kind of why it surprised me he'd get caught up in something like this. Maybe it's not a solid libel case after all?

\"As for the others,if they were served libel notices earlier this year you would THINK they would have gotten legal advice.\"

I would certainly hope so.

\"I'm not a blogger but if I was ,whether it be left ro right, I'd be extremely worried.\"

Agreed. In particular the liability of linking is what concerns me -- outright libel is usually pretty easy to avoid (just don't say things that aren't true), but what if you link to someone who's libelling? Or link to someone who's linking etc etc. It has the potential to be a nightmare.

Thanks again for the input.
JJ | Homepage | 04.11.08 - 10:13 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, the liability of linking is obviously the concern for most bloggers, but what I find a bit disturbing, at a moral level, are all these pronouncements of guilt, the blithe assertion that those being sued are obviously guilty.

People are making waaaay too many assumptions. If someone accuses a law-abiding citizen of armed robbery, for example, that's obviously libelous. If you accuse someone who has admitted to a string of robberies up and down both sides of a transcontinental highway of committing a particular robbery that he in fact *didn't* commit, that's a different case altogether.

There's two key points the \"guilty-as-charged\" crowd seem to be comprehensively avoiding. First -- and people shouldn't dismiss this too blithely -- HRC investigators, including that fella bringing the suit, have admitted under oath -- and only when prodded with evidence, after first denying it -- to having made pseudonymous postings on certain websites that they were investigating *for having hosted such comments.*

Second, in at least one case, HRC investigators used a woman's wireless connection, unbeknownst to her, and without her permission, to post such unsavoury comments, presumably in order to hide their trail from any accountable oversight.

These points are relevant because now a guy who's admitted to posting such comments is taking legal action because *one particular comment* cannot be definitively attributed to him. A computer-geek testified under oath that is came from his IP address, and the comment was congruent in tone to other comments that he's admitted to making, but this one cannot be definitively proven.

If he had never, ever, posted racist/anti-gay messages pseudonymously on sites being investigated for hosting such comments, it would be libelous to suggest that he would ever do such a thing; but he *has* admitted to doing just that, under oath, as have other HRC investigators.

IF he had not at first denied under oath that he made certain comments, then any denial he might make now that he'd made a certain posting could be taken more at face value.

And if the transcripts showed that HRC investigators making pseudonymous comments had never attempted to cover up IP addresses and to hide their tracks -- if reasonable records of the sort one would expect were kept -- then the presence or absence of an address would speak for itself, as evidence and as proof, that any particular comment did or did not in originate with the commission.

Commenters who pronounce or imply that the bloggers who are guilty are, IMO, guilty of not looking enough at the context of this case before they pass judgment. I doubt that an actual judge will be quite so binary about it.
EBD | 04.12.08 - 12:42 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, congratulations. Your blog is being hijacked.
RealityBites | 04.12.08 - 4:10 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"JJ, congratulations. Your blog is being hijacked.\"

Meh, that's OK, as long as they don't crash it into anything.
JJ | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 8:30 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ EBD - \"what I find a bit disturbing, at a moral level, are all these pronouncements of guilt\"

I don't think there's any moral issue to be concerned about -- it's not as simple as guilty/not guilty. My impression is that the issue in a libel suit isn't guilt as much as *intent*.

The posting at the center of all this was definitely posted in a few different places, so the \"guilt\" (if it could be called that) is established. The question (I think, and correct me if I'm wrong) is (a) whether the statements made about the author of the original posting were true, and (b) if there was malicious intent.

Commenters who pronounce or imply that the bloggers who are guilty are, IMO, guilty of not looking enough at the context of this case before they pass judgment.

Again, I think it's *intent*, not guilt, that's the issue. (Can't say I disagree that there's a lot more context to this thing, though.)

Thanks for a thoughtful comment, much appreciated.
JJ | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 10:08 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I'm not a lawyer, JJ -- as if that's not obvious -- but I'd assume that the question of what a person's intent was would be irrelevant unless that person done something wrong in the first place. It's in that sense that I'm surprised by how many people are jumping to the conclusion that the defendants (that's probably not the right word -- respondents?) are guilty in this case.

It seems like there's two camps, more or less, on this Warman suit: those who've read the transcripts which reveal the MO of the HRC's investigators, including such pseudonymous posts, the covering of tracks, and the initial denials, later retracted, of ever having made such posts; and on the other side those who are not as familiar with the particulars, and who simply take the statements in -- Kinsella's buddy -- Warman's legal threats at face value.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out, and whether those being sued will find a way to have Warman subject to examinations for discovery, which would expose his MO, and show that what he's attempting to portray as libelous describes his own behaviour. Currently, Warman is attempting to avoid examinations by setting the amount sought just below the legal threshold that would trigger them.

JJ, on the intent issue, what *if* the intent of the supposedly libelous posts was to show that Warman is the kind of guy who posts pseudonymous racist/sexist/anti-gay comments on sites that the HRC was investigating? That may *sound* bad, the transcripts show that he is indeed that kinda guy. It's indisputable. So -- and again, I'm a layman -- it's hard to see how accusing him of one particular additional comment similar to the other, but that can't be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be his could be deemed a blow to his reputation.

If people take the accusations in Warman's SLAPP attempt at face value then his desperate attempt to shut people up might work. Hopefully more and more people start to defend the right to open dialogue in this medium.

Anyway, have a good weekend. :>/>
EBD | 04.12.08 - 12:35 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ EBD - \"It's in that sense that I'm surprised by how many people are jumping to the conclusion that the defendants (that's probably not the right word -- respondents?) are guilty in this case.\" Yes, \"respondents\" or \"co-respondents\" would be more accurate, thanks.

I guess what you're saying is that we don't know for sure if RW was actually libeled. Given some of the context offered in your previous post, I see your point.

IMO, there's something decidedly unsettling about the thought of people surfing websites as \"agents provocateurs\". If they're investigating hate sites, they should be able to find plenty of what they're looking for without instigating it. That's troublesome. But does it call into question whether RW was libeled or not? Maybe in general opinion, but I'm not so sure about a court of law.

it's hard to see how accusing him of one particular additional comment similar to the other, but that can't be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be his could be deemed a blow to his reputation.\" Yeah.

In your other comment, you gave the analogy of the guy who robs every store and then gets accused of robbing one that he didn't.

The problem I see with that analogy is that if RW was posting racist etc comments, it supposedly wasn't something he did because *that's the way he rolls*, but because he was provocateuring, part of his investigative process. (Which is also bad, but that's another post for another day.)

So if someone accuses him of actually *being* a racist because of his provocateuring, and then cites as proof a post which he wasn't actually responsible for, that does sound kind of actionable to me. (Although not in as straightforward a way as I originally thought.)

I guess what it boils down to is that when we make a statement about something that someone did, we're obliged to make sure that it's true. It's starting to sound like both sides of this issue started out with the answer they wanted and then worked their way back from that, rather than building a case piece by piece and coming to an incontravertable conclusion.

You're right though, it will be interesting to see what happens.

You have a good weekend too $\"\"$
JJ | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 2:00 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I for one would like to see links - and not links to any of the \"free speech\" blogs that show that Warman or CHRC employees have made these \"agent provocateur\" posts you're insisting they have, EBD. Not posts in reply to racist posts or quoting racist posts, but have actually written racist material themselves and posted it. And not in the opinion of Mark Lemire/Fournier or Ezra Levant.

Post the proof, EBD. From a legitimate source - as in the actual transcript. Or kindly fuck off and stop lying. Which is what you're actually doing.
RealityBites | 04.12.08 - 2:37 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ He is? Whoops! Man, I really don't know enough about this thing.
JJ | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 2:53 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I'm with RB. I smell desperation.
Frank Frink | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 4:04 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB/FF - You guys will have to fill me in on the \"provocateuring\" part of it, I was under the impression that this practice had been established in another court case.

Also -- although I do take everything I read on this subject with a grain of salt, I don't begrudge the odd person commenting and trying to make their case from their POV. That is perfectly OK with me.

I'm on my break, I'll be back in a few hours.
JJ | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 7:10 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ From what I understand from other blogs the alleged \"Agent provocateur\" posts consisted of quoting disgusting things others had written. I am willing to be proven wrong by a legitimate, verifiable source, but EBD's casual comment that it's established fact makes me extremely skeptical of everything else said by this poster who (I believe) has not posted here previously.
RealityBites | 04.12.08 - 8:38 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ This nonsense comes straight from Marc Lemire's attorney - and even she only suggested it was possible that it could have happened. Believe me, if there was a smoking gun she'd have been happy to produce it.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top...aking_ids/8237/

OTTAWA, March 26 (UPI) -- An investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission told an Ottawa public inquiry he used online aliases to track alleged hate messages, transcripts said.

The admission came as part of a complaint review against a Toronto-area man and Web site owner by an anti-racism campaigner in Ottawa, the Ottawa Citizen reported.

Richard Warman accused Marc Lemire of allowing individuals to post statements that promote hatred against identifiable groups on his Web site.

One of the witnesses was Dean Steacy, who said his role as a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator led him to use fake e-mail addresses to communicate with neo-Nazi and other far-right Web site owners and users, the report said.

Lemire's attorney suggested Steacy's messages could have been used to \"entrap or entice\" others into posting incriminating messages, but Steacy said he was only trying to get names and addresses of those posting hateful messages, the report said.
RealityBites | 04.12.08 - 8:50 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ \"From what I understand from other blogs the alleged \"Agent provocateur\" posts consisted of quoting disgusting things others had written. I am willing to be proven wrong by a legitimate, verifiable source, but EBD's casual comment that it's established fact makes me extremely skeptical of everything else said by this poster who (I believe) has not posted here previously.\"

Right, and the fact that the Privacy Commissioner is investigating the CHRC is simply hearsay as well.

This is also my first tinme on this blog so your point is???????????

Horny Toad
Horny Toad | 04.12.08 - 10:39 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"This nonsense comes straight from Marc Lemire's attorney - and even she only suggested it was possible that it could have happened.\"

OK this is starting to ring a bell. These guys (Warman etc) were HRC investigators looking into stormfront. The racist parts of the comments they posted there were just \"quotes\" from the comment they were responding to. (Regardless, it seems a bit *kafka-esque* for HRC employees to be scouring the web for this shit, but anyway...)

So the Cools post was just posted by some random asshole, mistakenly attributed to Warman and that's the cause of the libel...

Pretty tangled friggin web, yikes.
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 1:24 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ My point is, Horny Toad, that you're an agent provocateur, dealing in innuendo. Let's see some FACTS. EBD said totally untrue things that, contrary to his statement, are NOT born out by the transcripts. Now you're using as backup that the privacy commissioner is investigating something.

You're both full of shit.
RealityBites | 04.13.08 - 5:38 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Oh no, there's no mistake here, JJ. The post came through a Rogers proxy that Warman had used months earlier and being idiots and/or wilfully malfeasant, they made this accusation in the safe confines of a hearing, being very careful not to repeat them where they could be sued.

Mark Fournier, a man so mind-bogglingly stupid that he actually married Connie Wilkins, was not nearly so careful, and landed himself and others in a great big lake o' shit.
RealityBites | 04.13.08 - 5:44 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - I just read through the original FD posting of the Cools post. So that came from Lemire's lawyer in a hearing? The point of it being to compromise Warman's credibility as an investigator/complainant? That's kind of a side issue, anyway.

But 2 things occur to me

(1) It's terrifying that the webmaster of a large message board like FD wouldn't know that reproducing that post and repeating the attribution would be dangerously close to the realm of libel. Especially given the character at the center of it all appears to be a walking HRC complaint/lawsuit generator. (Allegedly!!! $\"\"$ ) Ditto for everyone who reproduced it/linked to it, making the same allegation that RW was responsible for it.

(2) Levant would have to know (1). I wonder if something else is going on... nobody (esp a lawyer) willingly puts themselves on the losing end of a lawsuit.

Where did this Warman character come from anyway? I seem to remember he made a complaint or something against FD, but that's where I lost interest -- after the way they handled the Gentes complaint last summer I didn't want to watch what would ensue with the new one. (You'll recall that I was one of only a few on this side who supported FD that time -- in principle, anyway -- and took a few shots for it from some of my peers. Oh well.)

Anyway, that's the link with HRCs that's been baffling me -- tenuous at best. The post is still libelous, which is a whole different ball of feces, and nothing to do with HRCs or for that matter \"free speech\".

It appears that FD et al made the mistake of believing that old Arab proverb about \"the enemy of one's enemy being a friend\". Who says irony is dead?
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 8:48 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Your number 1 point doesn't surprise me at all. Fournier and Wilkins aren't all that bright and are blinded by ideology.

What got me thrown off FD years ago (I didn't last long) was when Connie suggested Cheryl Gallant as a likely future leader of the Canadian Alliance (or Reform, I forget the timing). I expressed incredulousness and was challenged to explain why. This is not something one can easily explain to her fans. It's because she's a raving lunatic, of course. And in support of my opinion, I point out that she is not a cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary or even allowed to speak. Ever.

Ezra does surprise me. On the other hand, his share of the $50,000 is likely chump change to him. His motivation may not hinge on whether or not he could prevail in a libel suit.

Warman is an anti-hate speech activist. He's launched most of the complaints against Nazi sites that have resulted in them being shut down.

He was profiled in the Ottawa Citizen last summer. http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...f3-a5a4909e1d54

I do think he is a man of principle - while recognizing they are principles you may not share. For what it's worth, I think the Fourniers are principled too. Appalling, loathsome principles and vile human beings, but essentially honest.
RealityBites | 04.13.08 - 11:46 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ This is a very interesting discussion.

First, I am an American of 55 years. I have been labeled a racist, homophobe, sexists...NOT because of anything which happened by my own actions, rather because of the side of the political spectrum I have at times aligned myself.

Anyway, Here in the US, Libel & Slander suits are basically a dead letter. Over the years, I have admired longingly, both archane Libel/slander laws, AND the UK's rule of the loser bearing the cost of suit. I was disabused of the later when 8-10 years ago, I saw it in action when the Chairman of Carlisle Football Club (a multi-millionaire) used the law suit to stifle and eliminate criticism of his running of the football club.

There is a MAJOR difference with regards to the 'Internet\",IMHO. First, blogs and chat sites are anonymous. Many, myself included (maybe particularly), are emboldened to Hyperbole at times, in argumentation. The difference, the community we reach or belong to is NO LONGER our family and/or friends, where many of our comments/opinions would be just a libelous, they just never go farther than that group. Something said over my pint of Guinness, NOW is out there for someone to find, no matter how large or small the actual audience.

It is humorous to me that I have read sites both right and left of center on this issue, and each side has little or no charity for the other, AND uses the same words/metaphors to characterize those with whom they disagree. I hate to tell you, that is a very human behavior.

You may celebrate the current difficulties of those with whom you have political disagreements, yet at the point you, in essence, criminalize political debate, your own rights to express yourself may at some point be be marginalized.

Did Warman do precisely what was written about him? I don't know, YET it is incontrovertible that Warman DID some of the things he is accused of, and the proof or lack thereof of the \"opinions\" is at issue, is the BlackBox secrecy of a Government Agency with he has worked, and whose proceedures he has used (in my opinion abused). IF the law allows him to hid behind this secrecy, which the taxpayers fund, that IMHO, should be abhorrant to everyone, no matter what their political stripe. It seems to me that Warman is using the fact that the Goverment Agency is \"Intentionally\" hiding information which might confirm the charges against him, where IF said Agency were \"transparent\" in their dealings with the public, this episode WOULD NOT exist.

I prize my \"Right to Free Expression\" and accept the limitation of \"intentional harm\". Otherwise, only those with the correct songbook will be immune from the challenge from those with whom they disagree.

Thanks for allowing me to rant, Abridgement of Free Speech (particularly that of those with whom I disagree) is worth a fight.

Regards,
the Dragon | 04.13.08 - 5:01 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ BUT-BUT-BUT- the lefties/righties are wrong, plain and simple. And no matter how hard you try and convince me I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not going to support that left/right bitch/prick under any circumstances even if I do lose my freedom of speech.

So there!

Horny Toad
Horny Toad | 04.13.08 - 5:23 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ If you're going to take the time and trouble of saying that what I said is untrue, or that it's BS, Rbites, you might as well take that extra couple of seconds to specify what it is, exactly, I said that is not borne out in the public record, i.e. the CHRT transcripts, particularly the ones from this year in which Barbara Kulaska gets down to business.

The MO of the HRCs is evident if you read almost any of the court transcripts; since you suggest that you have in fact read them, I'll assume that you're not questioning the existence of an MO that saw investigators planting racist/sexist comments. It must be something else.

For others who might be interested, and who have the time, Richardwarman.com/transcripts./html has a comprehensive and handy list of pdf transcripts from the CHRTs that involved testimony from Warman.

As for the posting of racist comments by Richard Warman, go to the transcript of the 2007-02-02 CHRT case of CHRC vs. Marc Lemire. On page 866, Barbara Kulaszka asks Warman if he's posted as \"pogue mahone\"; he confirms that he has.

Pogue mahone's comments, thereafter are a matter of public record; eg., \"There's a reason it's called 'White' Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement.\" -- 02-22-2005.

Try www.richardwarman.com/covert-ops-Pogue_Mahone.html

for a more complete list of some of his comments.

I've never commented here, RBites. I couldn't have, because I never knew this site existed until Kate McMillan linked to it. I have been commenting for years, though, as EBD, on other well-known sites. I'm just a regular, civilian commenter, and not connected in any manner whatsoever to any organization or advocacy group.

I understand and share your suspicious edge, there, though. When a new name all of a sudden pops up, that person may not be who he/she represents himself to be. In my case I -- ironically -- became hyper-aware of that after reading CHRT transcripts at some length. There is indeed reason to be suspicious about the provenance of any given comment, given that any particular comment could well be coming from a quasi-judicial, unaccountable government agency.

Agent provocateur, indeed.

Hey, Horny Toad, you're now a powerful undercover operative! Pick me up in your helicopter, and we'll plant comments at some other sites....

/:>>
EBD | 04.13.08 - 6:22 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Are you proud of yourself, EBD, for spending your time on Nazi sites? Sorry, not gonna visit them. Legit sources only. I have no more trust for what they say than for what you say.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with Nazis or Nazi apologists.
RealityBites | 04.13.08 - 6:49 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Seems to me that EBD directed you to transcripts of the HRC, hardly a nazis website although they are probably just as bad.

But like, I said, if you already have your mind made up......

Horny Toad
Horny Toad | 04.13.08 - 7:17 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - You got kicked off FD $\"\"$ Why am I not surprised?

Just as an aside here, I was just at FD and it looks like there is another suit against them that they missed, plaintiffs Warman and Kinsella? Not sure what this one is for but there's a .pdf at the link.

Thanks for the link -- There was another article in Macleans last week from the other POV. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between the two.

\"I do think he is a man of principle - while recognizing they are principles you may not share.\"

I'm not crazy about HRCs because of the potential for abuse, which I think we're seeing now with (what I consider) frivolous complaints like the one against Macleans/Steyn. I don't think HRCs were ever intended to be used as they've been used recently, as bludgeons to hammer someone who's made \"offensive\" comments. (Recognizing that there's a vast difference between \"offensive speech\" and \"hate speech\".) IMO, we don't have the right to not be offended.

That said, I agree Warman is principled (whether I agree with those principles is another post) and began this work with the *best intentions*, but we all know where that goes. I can't help wondering if he's gone a little overboard. (Although in the case of the Cools post, it seems fairly clear that the line between offensive and libel may have been crossed. But until the court rules as such, it might be prudent to withhold judgment.)

At the bottom of all this, I can't get my head around the idea of websites being policed by gov't employees. Maybe that's just a kneejerk reaction due to my healthy streak $\"\"$ of anti-statism, but it gives me the creeps.
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 8:37 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Hi, RealityBites. You said I was, in effect, lying, about HRC investigator's racist postings, the Mo of the HRC, etc., without providing evidence, so I directed interested parties to official government pdf transcripts of the CHRTs, as you requested, so people could examine, on their own, the ample, open and clearly stated -- under oath -- evidence, and decide for themselves who's telling the truth.

For this you call me a *Nazi* and/or a *Nazi apologist*. You lost the argument and thought you'd throw up an absolutely specious smoke-screen to hide it.

You crossed a line. I despise Nazis. I don't visit Nazi sites. I have black friends and Jewish friends and gay friends. You have absolutely no reason to mis-characterize me or to insult my integrity, and in effect that of my family and friends as well.

Give it up. The \"poison well\" tactic is really really and truly weak. And dont' forget: in the long run, the truth wins out, at which point reality only bites those who wish, for whatever reasons, whether personal or professional, to suppress it.

Hey, JJ -- sorry about the perhaps unpleasant discussion, and I apologize for whatever my contribution to that unpleasantness. Thanks for providing the forum.
EBD | 04.13.08 - 9:08 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ The Dragon - \"You may celebrate the current difficulties of those with whom you have political disagreements,\"

Admittedly there was a smirk or 2 when this news came out (including myself), but I think most of us quickly realized that this has further implications than just 5 or 6 people getting sued. I haven't seen any rejoicing over it at all -- most people seem to be reserving opinion.

\"Did Warman do precisely what was written about him? I don't know, YET it is incontrovertible that Warman DID some of the things he is accused of,\"

In an analogous way, this is sort of why I lean toward supporting SDA in this situation, while some others may not. Those who don't might think that even though this particular case is weak, SDA has published a lot of really offensive stuff in the past, so therefore kate's getting what's coming to her. I disagree. If something offensive has been published, let someone sue fair & square for it, not just assume SDA had malicious intent in this case because it may have published other malicious statements in the past.

Same goes with Warman -- he may or may not have posted certain types of comments in the past, but that doesn't mean that it can automatically be assumed that he published the one at the center of this libel case.

\"Abridgement of Free Speech (particularly that of those with whom I disagree) is worth a fight.\"

As something of a libertarian, I have a healthy respect for free speech. But I also recognize that there's a vast difference between free speech and libel, and IMO the right to free speech includes the responsibility not to libel. I'm afraid that the respondents in this Warman thing may ultimately damage the cause of free speech that they claim to be so enamoured with because of their irresponsibility, so I find it a little irksome that they're trying to frame this as a free speech issue. It isn't -- it's a libel issue. (Just my .02.)

Thanks for an informative comment, dragon. I appreciate the contribution.
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 10:27 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ HT - Just as an aside, I'm aware this case is being framed as a free speech issue, but it's not -- it's a libel issue.

Free speech doesn't include libel, slander or defamation. I'm sure you'd agree that free speech comes with responsibilities, one of which is to avoid things like libel, slander and defamation.
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 10:41 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ EBD - Those links come up 404 -- maybe because of what's been going on?

I know at some point I read a transcript somewhere where RW said he had posted certain messages, but I'm not sure where I read it or what the source was, so I'll reserve until I find something substantive.

I think RB, and most of us for that matter, have been a little dismayed by the unsavoury aspect of some of the people that Levant et al have chosen to align themselves with. So that's why there's some suspicion with regard to sources etc. I personally wouldn't trust Lemire and his ilk to give me the right time, but that's just me.

EDIT -- No need to apologize for anything. You guys have been very good $\"\"$
(Well, except for BCF, who just did the \"drop a turd and run\" drive-by thing. Oh well.)
JJ | Homepage | 04.13.08 - 10:57 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ,

I think in a broad way we are in agreement.

One problem is IMHO, speech that 50 or 100 years ago would have NEVER reached beyond the local pub, or small gathering, can NOW be read around the world. YET, in many cases, the community of interest is just as small, yet technology makes it available to all. Example: I support a small 7th level football/soccer team in SW London. On gameday there is a message board which has posters from Singapore, Australia, Sweden, Spain, UK, Bulgaria, and the US. My local pub come global.

Another issue, demonstrated by my post is that inarticulate individuals (myself) can say/write something they believe to be clear and on point, yet it is may be perceived far different by others. Alas, that is the art and damnation of communicating.

I don't disagree that there is a difference in \"Free Speech\" and Libel, yet as I said, I believe libel is and has to be an intentional act to misrepresent and distort. I have great fear of silencing opposing points of view by filing a lawsuit which may not have merit. EVEN should the suit have merit, some of the defendents may not have the resources to defend themselves.

I, in my old age, have come to the conclusion that the US requirement of malice to be proved by the plaintiff for a libel or slander action to proceed. It is the best choice of a whole lot of very bad options, IMHO.

I have many opinions, I presume you do as well. I observe events, form opinions based on the facts available to me, do I have to bite my tongue because I cannot be sure that I know every salient fact? If so, of what use is my \"free Speeh\" right?

When I was a gradeschooler well into the last millenia, there was a ditty we kids often repeated \"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS will never hurt me\". Quite naive and childish, yet speaking to a far greater truth. Do/can WORDS hurt, absolutely, yet they are rarely fatal. I await with interest the first Death Certificate: Cause of Death...WORDS. (sorry for the snark).

Has SDA posted items with which some/many disagree? I am sure so. Have you? Maybe. I happen to be very strident about an issue that is not political. I have ascribed all manner of nefarious/evil motivations to WADA (World anti-doping Agency); AND I think I have been proven correct in my expressions over time, yet I keep coming back to the fact that it is possible (unlikely IMHO) that those I accuse have reached unnacceptable results (IMHO) in an attempt to do good? It's possible, so because it's possible for there to be a silver lining in the resulting individual harm, do I shut up?

I guess my main point is to look beyond ones feelings about the individual players, and look at how one would view the issue if they were in a similar situation. I get angered at times by things I read or hear, and then I step back and ask myself, IF I could silence this viewpoint, how long will I be able to express my own ENLIGHTENED viewpoint?

Re
the Dragon | 04.14.08 - 5:30 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, The danger of frivolous complaints is, IMHO, a complete red herring. We don't abolish police departments because of the danger of false or frivolous crime accusations.

There was once a case in a relative's place of work where someone filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The accusastion was quite serious. And shortly after letting them know about it, the investigator phoned back to say \"Never mind.\" Further conversation with the complainant led them to conclude that while the accusation was serious, the events were quite imaginary.

That's part of their job. To assess complaints, proceed if they seem likely, attempt to negotiate a settlement and then, if all attempts fail, take it to a tribunal.

The issue is whether or not hate speech as currently defined by law should be permissable or not. Those complaints that have been accepted, investigated and ruled on by tribunal (all dozen or so of them) have unquestionably met the legal definition. The complaints against Steyn and Levant did not, and no one who supports that definition ever thought they did. Only people who ever thought there was a danger of a ruling against Levant and Steyn were their own stirred-up supporters.

I think people should look, not at writing that was never in the slightest danger of being found to contravene the Human Rights Act, but at the writing that HAS been. If individuals believe that writing should be permissable in our society then they should lobby parliament to make the appropriate changes in the law.

But HRCs are fulfilling their legal mandate from parliament and the provincial legislatures. They are not \"out of control\" as many claim and they are not overstepping their mandate.
RealityBites | 04.14.08 - 7:29 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, I noticed that post last night. It's based on an \"I'm rubber, you're glue\" posting made by Mark Fournier in which he claims that Warman and Fournier are in fact the things they are accusing people like Lemire of being.

In my completely non-expert opinion it seems a less strong case than the other one, as it's based more in Fournier's unflattering opinion of them than an accusation of things they've done.

But as I said over at BCL, I wonder if the Fourniers' lawyer gives volume discounts.
RealityBites | 04.14.08 - 7:42 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Hi Dragon - It's safe to say we're on the same page in some of this.

\"I believe libel is and has to be an intentional act to misrepresent and distort.\"

Agreed, but I think (by law) it can also be unintentional -- ie, thinking something is probably true isn't good enough, there has to be absolute proof. That's where this Warman thing went sideways -- the respondents trusted information they got from a questionable source.

You have to wonder about that aspect of it though -- they obviously thought their source was credible. So is it still libel? Probably. I guess the onus is on the person making the statement (he did this, she did that etc.) to provide incontrovertable proof that it's true.

I agree, it's sticky.

\"I, in my old age, have come to the conclusion that the US requirement of malice to be proved by the plaintiff for a libel or slander action to proceed. It is the best choice of a whole lot of very bad options, IMHO.\" Can't say I disagree with that!

\"do I have to bite my tongue because I cannot be sure that I know every salient fact?\"

My guess would be, only if you're making a statement as fact, not opinion. I believe opinion is exempt from libel (or should be). For example, for me to say that IMO someone is a \"felching fecalphiliac\" (one of the more hilarious terms named by RW) apparently isn't the same as saying so & so IS a felching fecalphiliac.

Although you have to wonder -- does this mean we have to preface everything we write with, \"IMO\"? It should be a given in 99.9% of cases that it's an opinion.

\"Death Certificate: Cause of Death...WORDS. (sorry for the snark).\" $\"\"$
On that note, I thought you might appreciate this vid I posted here a few months ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8...expression.html

\"Has SDA posted items with which some/many disagree? I am sure so. Have you? Maybe.\"

Maybe? Absolutely. That's one of the reasons I have a blog, to blow off steam. I absolutely publish stuff that other people would find offensive, and do it with great gusto. And I support the right of others to do the same, whether I agree or not (maybe even *especially* if I don't agree). Unless it's something that specifically incites hate/violence, it's their right to publish their opinion, however vile I might find it.

\"IF I could silence this viewpoint, how long will I be able to express my own ENLIGHTENED viewpoint?\" As much as I might disagree with some viewpoints, I am not an advocate of silencing/censorship, anything but. So there we are definitely on the same page.

Our libel laws have long been pretty archaic -- your post also points out a need to revisit them in the context of online communication.

I appreciate your thoughts, Dragon. Thanks for taking the time to post them.
JJ | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 8:29 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - I am right on my way out the door to work, but I'll address your post when I get back. Tata!
JJ | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 8:45 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Dragon a problem with an intentional intent to misrepresent and distort is that some people are starting from a personal reality that is distorted. And still other people are just plain stupid.

If my personal reality is so warped as to believe your next-door neighbour is a reptilian kitten-eater from outer space, and your dislike of that neighbour for playing loud music is so great that you are willing to take my word on it, despite the absence of scales and missing kittens, should you be exempt from libel law because you sincerely believe yourself to be telling the truth?
RealityBites | 04.14.08 - 9:17 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Whoops. JJ, this link works for me:

http://www.richardwarman.com/tra.../May_9_2007.pdf

Hope it works, if not, I suggest Googling HRC + Kulaszka. There are many tens of thousands of pages of transcripts extant; the above one is a good place to start, partly due to the placid organized determination of lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, but also because a sometimes-HRC-investigator named Hannya Rizk turns out to be considerably more honest in her responses -- far less \"memory loss\" -- than others.

What emerges -- albeit painstakingly and dryly -- in the transcript is a sense of privilege to bypass anything resembling fairness or due process. One example: one currently going-concern guy -- let's call him \"Buttercup\" -- who had personally filed a complaint with the HRC not only had access to the building and the files, but helped train the person investigating his complaint, had conversations and info-sessions throughout about the case with those who were investigating it, asked for the complaint to be delayed at a certain point for strategic reasons while he had conversations with the police, etc., etc.

It's like, your neighbour charges you with something, and then gets unfettered access to the crime lab and the cops and the prosecuting attorney. There's just...sooo many strange things that seem self-evidently wrong to any honest and fair person to even begin to list here.

On the way out, here, I'd like to address the issue of name-calling and dismissing others, or accusing them of misrepresenting and distorting, or of being \"just plain stupid\" -- on this or any other issue: If a stupid, or hysterically biased person -- could be Ted Bundy or Rudolf Hess -- or your putative political enemy directs someone to official legal transcripts of an in-camera hearing, the words on the transcript remain exactly the same, regardless. The character of the person making the reference to them, and his motive, is absolutely neither here nor there when the evidence is being looked at.

That's where the \"poison well\" technique that's s all too frequent on the blogosphere, on both the left and the right, goes \"ker-splat\": Slurs, ultimately, aren't reasonable, and aren't any sort of argument at all. Insults don't destroy hard evidence. It's highly apparent that this can be frustrating at times, but that's life; certain evidence, like a series of official transcripts of hearings, is not a misrepresentation of anything, and in fact it's a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. The words, the confessions, the denials on a legal transcript belong to the people making them, not the person who directs others to the document. Even if the link fails.

:>0>

PS, BTW,, the archives at ezralevant.com link to, and analyze, some of the transcripts. Here's one such post:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/wh...march-25th.html
EBD | 04.14.08 - 2:11 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW said:

In the States, Truth is an ultimate defence against any libel. Not so in Canada. If you want to plead \"fair comment\" you have to ALSO prove that you didn't engage in the fair comment with a malicious intent.

But I thought the whole purpose of the libel laws was to punish those writing false things about others? If truth isn't a defence in Canada, that's a shockingly unjust situation. How can a true statement be \"malicious\"?
sporadicus | 04.14.08 - 4:47 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - Re HRCs: I'm a little paranoid of such quasi-judicial bodies in general, but as I've said here before, it's good that the legitimately-wronged who can't afford a court case have some kind of recourse. Like the libel laws, HRCs could probably benefit with a re-tooling, but generally they seem to function the way they're supposed to.

\"The complaints against Steyn and Levant did not, and no one who supports that definition ever thought they did\" Those complaints were actually pretty good examples of HRCs functioning the way they're supposed to -- separating the wheat from the chaff and dismissing what doesn't make the cut. (In retrospect, some of the rather melodramatic responses look pretty silly.) Although it's another category I'm a bit uneasy with, the hate speech bar is set pretty high, IMO.

I don't think HRCs are out of control, just in need of some tweaking). And, like most gov't bodies, there should be more transparency in how they function.
JJ | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 4:59 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ RB - \"should you be exempt from libel law because you sincerely believe yourself to be telling the truth?\"

No. Because no matter what you *believe*, if you are making a public statement saying so-and-so engages in such-and-such (esp illegal) activities, there has to be proof. That's pretty clear.

That's where these guys fucked up -- I'm sure they believed that RW made that posting. But their \"proof\" was insufficient, even before Buckets' analysis debunked it.
JJ | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 5:18 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ MWW,

In the US Truth may be the ultimate defense to libel, yet it IS NOT apparently the ultimate defense to perjury.

In BALCO case, an athlete is charged with perjury. Her grand jury testimony includes a question by the Prosecutor \"Did X send you performance enhancing drugs?\"...Her answer was NO!. She was convicted of perjury, even thought X DID NOT send her the PED's, X's girlfriend did. Both the Prosecutor and Judge should be sitting in jail (I think 20 years to learn how to parse a sentence), as they lied to the Court (something we are told is a no no) and colluded to commit a fraud on the public.

Regards,
the Dragon | 04.14.08 - 5:24 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ EBD - Thanks for the links.

HRCs are kind of another issue, but as I said above, while I'm not wild about them I recognize they serve a function. However, IMO they could benefit with some tweaking.

Libel law is also in desperate need of revisiting and retooling in the context of online communication. But for now, it is what it is.
JJ | Homepage | 04.14.08 - 5:31 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ IMHO Warman is acting like a certified fascist. Canada is a fascist country now? I bet American, European and Australian bloggers can mock Warman right into a straight jacket. Everyone in Canada must hear about this Warman and the HRC injustice!

This fellow in the HRC, Richard Warman, sounds like a totally wonderful human being who doesn’t have a huge chip on his shoulder or one evil bone in his whole fair-minded body.

He doesn’t at all sound like a sick and demented bastard who is angry and bitter because he got his butt massively kicked in those elections years ago.

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe likes
human rights commissions

that violate human rights
while claiming to protect them

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
real freedom of speech

an American concept
which is NOT for Canada

.
Why Does Canada Allow This?

All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.

http://www.richardwarman.com/

http://haltterrorism.com

$\"\"$
.
USpace | Homepage | 04.17.08 - 11:45 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ Hi Uspace - If you want to be taken seriously, starting off by asking if Canada is a fascist country is probably not the way to do it. Just sayin'. $\"\"$

What we're discussing here is a libel suit, which has nothing to do with free speech, or HRCs for that matter.

\"Free speech\" is calling someone a jerk. \"Libel\" is accusing the jerk of doing something criminal without having any credible evidence -- same as in the USA. Warman has been accused of something criminal and has responded by suing for libel. The court will ultimately decide whether it's libel or not, but as it stands it looks like his case is pretty reasonable.

My issue is that the suit against one of the respondents isn't (IMO) fair & square -- someone else's writing, some links and some comments, but nothing created by the site owner herself. I think that stinks.

As for the rest of them, if they are found to have libeled Warman, they can take a running jump, I have zero sympathy for them. They're being extremely disingenuous by positioning their situation as a free speech issue -- it's not, it's a libel issue. IMO they may be doing more to damage free speech online in Canada by their melodramatic posturing and ongoing attempts to conflate free speech with libel.

Much hay has been made among the cerebrally-deprived of that statement \"free speech is an american concept\". In context, I believe he was referring to 1st amendment rights, which we don't have. We do however have freedom of expression enshrined in our Charter of Rights, same difference.

If I were an American, I don't know if I'd be so quick to accuse Canada of lacking freedoms -- warrantless wiretapping and other such invasions of privacy initiated by the Bush Administration are much bigger threats to freedom (and much closer to fascism, for that matter) than anything an HRC could ever do, and you guys are just letting it slide. That to me is utterly amazing, but I don't accuse the USA of being \"fascist\".

Thanks for the input
JJ | Homepage | 04.17.08 - 1:36 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ JJ, Thanks, but I didn't accuse Canada of being fascist. I asked if Canada was fascist.

Warman is acting like a fascist for trying to stifle political expression he disagrees with.

He tries to brand anyone concerned with immigration problems or creeping Sharia in Canada as a racist or a Nazi.

Besides, even racists and Nazis are entitled to voice and express their views, no matter how sick they are.

Racists and Nazis must be debated openly to show them and everyone else why their ideas are bogus and insane.

Shutting them up makes this much harder to do.

However, he may have bit off more than he can chew with this libel suit, given that a complaint was just brought against the CHRC for violating the Privacy Act by allegedly accessing a nearby (the CHRC offices) homeowner's wireless internet account to log onto Stormfront or something in one of their racist incitement and entrapment schemes.

If what was said is true, it is not libel.

Even the Leftists in the USA who are racists aren't against unpopular speech as much as Canadian Leftists seem to be.

What if Canada was much more conservative, would Leftists then like being brought before Kangaroo Courts because of some Communist, Socialist or multicultural rants they wrote online or in a magazine? I think not.

Also, the wiretapping of terrorists' overseas conversations with their friends in the USA is not a problem with most Americans. They know that it is smart intelligence practice to try to stop terrorist monkeys before they commit an act of terrorism.

Probably no innocent Americans have been caught up in this. If they had, you can bet the Bush-hating Media and the blogs would have been all over it repeatedly. Practically everyone would know about it.
...
USpace | Homepage | 04.20.08 - 12:02 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ and furthermore:

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
put an END to FREE speech

because without FREE speech
there can be NO true FREEDOM

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never admit mistakes

cling to false ideologies
brainwash your countrymen

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
appease religious wackos

even those like Nazis
NEVER point out their faults

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw most bloggers

license all the rest
monitor their writing

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
eliminate FREE speech

the truth may not be spoken
if criminals are exposed

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

$\"\"$
.
USpace | Homepage | 04.20.08 - 12:03 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan

$\"\"$ ");