I don't care what you think of Kate (I happen to like her). This Warman character is your enemy if you enjoy being able to freely speak your mind. This cuts across all those stupid, meaningless labels people throw around, like "left", "right", "progressive", "liberal" and so on. Warman is no friend to democracy. Whatever your political inclination, I encourage you to offer support of whatever kind you can muster to the bloggers this "person" is trying to squash under his boot heel (or rather the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's). Take note that Mr. Warman is suing for $50,000, which, according to Ezra Levant places the suit under expedited procedure that doesn't include examination for discovery. How convenient.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
From your perspective, should it be illegal to falsely publish an accusation that person X has committed a crime?
I don't disagree with your remarks about Warman OC, but I do believe there is some personal responsibility on the part of anyone when they say or print accusations against anyone that they may not be able to prove and that cause real harm to someone's reputation.
There is a side of me that feels badly for Kate. Her sin may be one of association. That is for the court to decide.
Ezra et al will need to prove what they posted is true to get out of this one. If they do, it's game over for Warman. If they don't well they will look even more foolish than they do already.
TH
I suspect this suit is retaliatory, payback for the humiliation of his beloved HRC star chambers.
No. It shouldn't be "illegal". It should be actionable, which it is.
But it has to be false. I don't think in this case it is.
I strongly suspect that the use of expedited procedure is not to please the court system, but to avoid the excruciating and worse,revealing process of discovery. Warman is an avowed enemy of one of our most basic freedoms. I dearly hope he loses these suits and eats the costs on each one. Here's hoping he's bitten off more than he can chew, between Ezra, Kate and a real court of law with laws of evidence instead of his usual kangaroo court of choice.
By the way, I don't think they'll look "even more foolish" if they lose, because I don't think they look foolish now.
This is your fight too. It's about way more than a single libel suit and you know it.
If they came for you, I'd say something.
OC
It is "my fight too" as you put it. There is a difference, however, between what Kate is facing, a far more complex and unfair issue, than what Ezra and Kathy have arguably brought upon themselves through what a complete lack of foresight and discretion. Ezra is a lawyer for Cris'sake.
I don't like Warman any more than you , OC, but he has been accused of doing some pretty nasty things. What if he really isn't what they claimed he was?
TH
If he isn't, he'll win. The onus is on the defendant to prove the truth of their statements. I think they can. Ezra ia no fool. Neither is Kathy.
Regardless of whether Mr. "maximum disruption" has in fact done the nasty things he's been accused of doing with respect to the postings (I wouldn't say it looks terrific for him), he's still a serial abuser of a very bad law. Since 2002, I believe section 13 has been his exclusive domain.
OC
Anyone who sues libraries to have books banned gets my full Irish too.
I respect your regard for both Levant and Shaidle but I have a suspicion that they have clouded and confused a very noble battle against the HRC's by waging a personal one against Warman. There are a lot of unknowns in the latter and way too much emotion in the former. It's probably not a winning combination in my humble guesstimation.
Anyway, I made a penance of sorts earlier today and also in a post on Stageleft a few moments ago. Swallowing pride is never easy, and as you will see, I blame you partly. :)
TH
"But it has to be false. I don't think in this case it is."
I guess that's what we're going to find out, no?
"If they came for you, I'd say something."
I don't expect to give you occasion to. And I think your application of the line out of context does a disservice to the original.
That line referenced the persecution of a people who were being rounded up and murdered, not because of what they, individually and collective, had done, but because of their religion.
If I were casting that scenario, Occ, I wouldn't be casting Kathy Shaidle as the victim. She'd be carrying the bullhorn.
B:
Pull off your ideological blinders on this one.
I don't think my paraphrase was misplaced at all. You think persecution starts with a flood? History suggests it begins life as a trickle of poison.
OC
"Pull off your ideological blinders on this one."
I guess that's one way to dismiss disagreement. But you're mistaken, I'm afraid. My "ideology', to the extent that I have one in this instance, relates to the rule of law.
Warman is seeking redress through the legal system for a perceived wrong. By some mysterious alchemy (uncontaminated, of course, by your own ideological views), you've decided that he is guilty of the actions he's been accused of by his opponents. Not being blessed with your privileged access to all the relevant data and your miraculous insight into Mr. Warman's actions and motives, I can't reach that conclusion, and like most of us lesser mortals, I will defer to the courts.
"I don't think my paraphrase was misplaced at all."
Presumably not.
"You think persecution starts with a flood? History suggests it begins life as a trickle of poison."
It certainly does. It starts with folks who literally boast about their hatred, and who celebrate the notion of the murder of a race they despise.
I don't think the Shaidles of this world should be prohibited from publishing their hatred or big picture religious or racial bigotry, because I think it's useful for us to see them coming.
But I don't think they have the right to commit libel. Did they? Well, we'll find out, won't we?
Sorry, bud: La Shaidle's attempt to cloak herself in martyr's robes is about as funny as it gets, and the eagerness of so many bloggers to help up onto the pedestal is even funnier.
"It starts with folks who literally boast about their hatred, and who celebrate the notion of the murder of a race they despise."
No. It doesn't. It starts with people putting in place the mechanisms by which the power of the state may be harnessed to injure and oppress those who are deemed unworthy of the protection of the law. That's the trickle of poison. Not a few crackpots spewing hatred (particularly when an unknown portion of those crackpots may be cops or HRC goons posing as said crackpots).
"I don't think the Shaidles of this world should be prohibited from publishing their hatred or big picture religious or racial bigotry, because I think it's useful for us to see them coming."
Really? Because Warman would most vehemently disagree with you. By the way, I don't endorse the characterization of political opponents as bigots and hatemongers (not even socialists).
"But I don't think they have the right to commit libel. Did they? Well, we'll find out, won't we?"
Who said anything about the right to commit libel? I just think we should offer support to people who are being sued as part of a larger campaign to squash free speech. Sounds like you've made a prejudgement of this case yourself. As you say, we'll find out.
"... to injure and oppress those who are deemed unworthy of the protection of the law."
Phew. Well, thank God that's not the case here. Those included in the complaint are absolutely entitled to the protection of the law.
"That's the trickle of poison. Not a few crackpots spewing hatred..."
Good characterization.
"I don't think the Shaidles of this world should be prohibited from publishing their hatred or big picture religious or racial bigotry, because I think it's useful for us to see them coming."
"Really? Because Warman would most vehemently disagree with you."
Very likely. And the relevance of that observation to my views is...?
"I just think we should offer support to people who are being sued as part of a larger campaign to squash free speech."
And I'm sure they appreciate your support, and your willingness to frame the charge in the heroic-martydom-for-free-speech they've designed. I personally see it self-aggrandizing theatre by a few hatemongers masquerading as victims who may or may not have crossed the legal line.
"Sounds like you've made a prejudgement of this case yourself."
Au contraire, dear boy. I'm the one who's viewing these histrionics with a sceptical eye, and suggesting that the courts will sort it out.
Referring to Ezra Levant, et al as "hatemongers" and decrying "histrionics" in the same comment. You've now supplied my afternoon chuckle.
Thank you.
OC
Heh, Balbull slays me...everytime.
Well, Occ...let's look at what a "hatemonger" is, shall we? It's generally held to be someone who promotes hatred of others, wouldn't you say?
Now, are you going to make me put on my wetsuit and reproduce, one more time, some of the instances in which Ms. Shaidle has done precisely that?
You are aware that she has just bragged how proud she is of running what she referred to as her Hate Blog, aren't you?
Sorry, OC. Calling her a hatemonger isn't histrionics. It's simple taxonomy, and until last week she was proud of being a hatemonger.
Oh brother Balbull...you sound like Scenty and Cyntie...please, count to ten pal.
I just love the petty bitchiness of these lefties, dressed as always in self-righteous nobility. You think these bozos would tweak to the fact that souls far braver than they have chosen to stand their ground and that a victory for Shaidle Levant, Connie and Kate will also save the lefties sorry butts. Talk about ingratitude.
I wonder if it's libellous to call someone a "hatemonger".
That's a rather subjective and incendiary term. It could even be construed as an allegation of criminal behaviour. Not to worry. I can't imagine any of the alleged "hatemongers" scraping up their knuckles hurrying off to the courts.
OC
There are few things as dangerous as bad arguments for good ideas.
My fear is that Kate, Kathy and Ezra have handled some aspects of their altercations with Mr Warman (for whom I have little sympathy) poorly, possibly dangerously so. The end result might be great damage to a good idea (freedom of expression) they were trying to protect.
That said, I have no respect for Mr Warman for taking advantage of the situation, although it certainly would seem to be out of character were he not to do so. My understanding of his actions in other cases demonstrates to me that he wants to outlaw opinions he simply doesn't *like* by making simply being wrong illegal. To Mr. Warman, I think this brouhaha is just a tantalizing target of opportunity and I also think he's going after mosquitos with a shotgun, with little regard for the collateral damge he's doing to free, open and spirited discourse. In short, I think he's far more dangerous long-term than the folks he's gunning for.
BCF: grownups talking here.
OC: You ducked the question. Let me ask you directly.
Hatemongering is promoting or advocating hatred of others.
Kathy Shaidle bragged at Mike Brock's blog that she is "proud to run a Hateblog". If you want, I can wade back into her site and retrieve several examples.
Sorry, dude. Denying that she's a hatemonger is not the way to go here, because she is. And she's proud of it (or she was last week. I suspect we'll find her boasting a bit less about her hate for the next little while - doesn't wear well with the martyr act, does it?)
But that's not really the point. I defend her right to run a hateblog to her heart's content.
I do not defend her right to libel, or to attribute criminal actions to those who haven't committed them. If you do, no problem. We disagree.
Re: "From your perspective, should it be illegal to falsely publish an accusation that person X has committed a crime?"
The thread on FD is a debate. A discussion if you will. The thread begins with Mr. Warman accused of posting hateful messages on a website and then accusing the owner of the site of publishing hate messages.
Those discussing the matter found that Mr. Warman *did not* continue to accuse the site owner of publishing that particular message. It was dropped from his HRC complaint when questions were raised about the message's origins.
Those discussing the matter found that it was statistically very probable that Mr. Warman posted the message in question, but that it could not be proven for sure one way or another. The debaters made this finding even without questioning the authenticity of the server logs which show that the message was posted from a computer whose operating system, browser identification string and IP address match Mr. Warman's known electronic fingerprints exactly. Server logs are text files and are easily edited.
The discussion peters off, as those investigating and debating the matter found that they could not prove the accusations true or false. Mr. Warman's Statement of Claim cherry-picks from that discussion
Mr. Warman has been found on other occasions to have posted hateful messages on various sites, which charges are supported by his own testimony and that of HRC investigator Dean Stacey. These findings add credibility to the charge, but does not prove it. Mr. Warman has not sued over the publication of these other accusations -- he has only sued over this one accusation which was found in FD's debates to be *probable* but *unprovable*.
The hateful message in question has been quoted in other places because it is among the most vile of all the messages he is believed by some to have posted, and because it references a sitting Senator. Those who stand accused of libel because they have quoted this discussion thread at FD also provided links to the discussion. Any reasonable person reading the source discussion would know that the accusation was raised, discussed, and dismissed as unproven. A reasonable person may also come to believe that because Mr. Warman has been videotaped coucelling others to commit a crime, and because he has on other occasions done precisely what he is accused of in that discussion, that this specific accusation, while unproven, is likely true.
I don't believe that the FD thread is libel. It is no more libel than publicly discussing a murder case in which the defendant -- a known killer -- gets off on one charge because the evidence, while compelling, is either inconclusive, or unreliable, or both.
I suspect that Mr. Warman will need very deep pockets and a very friendly Liberal appointed judge to win on this one. Even if he does win, it won't help the Canadian Human Rights Commission, whose abuses have been a subject of much debate and discussion around the blogosphere; it won't help Mr. Warman's deservedly tarnished reputation either.
"proud to run a hateblog"
Since I know you can't be that naive, I can only assume you're being disingenuous.
"I don't believe that the FD thread is libel."
Yes, you've made that clear. And now the courts will decide whether or not you're correct. Marvellous thing, the law, isn't it?
""proud to run a hateblog" Since I know you can't be that naive, I can only assume you're being disingenuous."
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. When she stated that she was "proud to run a hateblog", you're suggesting that this was...what? A playful quip? Like her hilarious call for smallpox infected blankets?
Naive? Pffft. Remove the beam from your eye before commenting on what you imagine to be a mote in mine.
It is amusing to witness the lefts suicidal tendencies at play, the grasping at straws, the attempts to obfuscate the real issues at hand. It is also encouraging to see that the error of their ways is clearly and consistently rebutted.
What is at play among some on the left is that they realize they have had no real role in this fight other than being on the sidelines. Generally speaking they have been cheering for the wrong side. Frankly their motivation for sniping at Kathy, Kate, Ezra and the Fourniers is the unpleasant realization that they have been marginalized by their own partisan agendas, their own petty jealousies and their own lack of courage.
Oh hi Balbulican!
BCF: grownups talking here.
From Balbulican in the comments at SDA: "In that way, I suppose I'm looking forward to a bit more clarity; more light, less heat."
That's what a trial is for Balby. You may want to keep that in mind rather than pronounce on the guilt of others as you have been doing.
Grown up indeed Balby, carry on with your smears.
I wonder if this comment thread could be a cause of action in a similar suit?
And isn't that uncertainty the real problem?
"That's what a trial is for Balby."
Exactly what I've been saying for the duration of this thread, BCF. Glad we agree.
"rather than pronounce on the guilt of others as you have been doing...."
Not sure what exactly you're talking about, but if you care to produce an example, I'll be happy to respond.
Balby you have made reference to comments made by Shaidle that you state to be racist etc., that she runs a hateblog, in I consider, a jealous effort to diminsh her stature and somehow elevate your own.
What court was she convicted in? Yours?
Shaidle has long been an obsession of yours. Your motives are clear.
Heh. BCF, I can't help but think you're the perfect illustration of Balbulican's ninth law from the third volume of the "Book of Balb", 2004 Folio edition, which I quote:
"9. No-one ever attributes to another a motive more complex or noble than they themselves are capable of."
For that reason, my dear BCF, I'm afraid you're not ever going to understand my "motives". Best not speculate.
But as to the discussion at hand: may I gently ask you to guess who said the following:
"I'm proud to run a "hate" blog. I "hate" lots of people."
Go ahead. Guess.
Then tell me again that I'm "pronouncing on the guilt of others."
Context is everything Balby, you as always are being disingenuous. A sense of humour might also aid your understanding of Kathy's comment - something you clearly lack.
Now re-read this post and Kates, then reflect on your own obsessive behavior. The truth is there for all to see.
Are you familiar with the word "context" Balbull?...and perchance do your bona fides include a stint as an editor at the CBC?...I hate people too, as in people who pick their nose in public, people who sneeze in an elevator sans hanky, people who neglect to indicate a left hand turn with the appropriate signal, people who park in stalls reserved for the handicap, people who butt in check-out lines...hatemonger?
Apologies BCF, you beat me to the "context"...great minds think alike?...heh heh.
Yeah, that really was ambiguous, wasn't it... "I'm proud to run a hateblog"...
Give your heads a shake, kids.
Occ...can you salvage this from the tots? I'm getting bored.
Balby! Still throwing stones? How can it be possible that even a single pane remains intact?
As I said previously Balby re-read the posts, & reflect on your own obsession.
Have a good day.
BCF, if you don't mind a friendly suggestion: read the initial part of this thread.
Three adults are talking. There's banter, and there's a bit of heat, but basically, we're talking about a couple of real ideas and issues, and we're listening to and responding to each other.
I've been to your blog, and I know that's not how you run things. And that's fine. But may I respectfully suggest that when you visit someone else's site, you try to talk up to their level? If you want to do the tot-trolling thing, keep it to your site or SDA. Here, it's a little juvenile, and a little embarassing.
Just a tip.
Oh Balby that is rich;) Read and reflect, the truth will set you free.
Indeed it has. Best of luck in your own pursuit of it.
Dear sweet(when I gots nuthin') balbull cracks open the "Book of Balbull(shit)" and flips over to the "Adults are talking" chapter...this guy gets me everytime...heh heh.
"the "Adults are talking" chapter..."
It IS a difficult concept, isn't it?
Oh Balbull, grow-up.
Well, that was certainly a dazzling display of wit, Anon. Gosh, after a pyrotechnical riposte like that, I'm just speechless.
Occ? You EVER coming back, or are you leaving me here to rot among the tots?
Now Balbull, I will refer you once again to the "Book of Balbull" where it clearly states(don't ask me to recite chapter/verse) where you (Balbull) will not now or ever acknowledge the existence of the anon. troll(me). I don't know your age (est. 55 - 60) but clearly my dear fellow perhaps an examination for the alzheimer disease is in order toot sweet. Now please return to your regular scheduled whine..."Oc, where are you? whine whine...I wanna talk to the adults...whine whine.
B:
I suppose I must be a good fellow and spell this out for you, though oyu no doubt already have grasped it. When Kathy says she is proud to run a "hateblog", you must deem her statement to contain the following qualifier "considering the idiots who are labelling it as such". That is my belief with respect to that particular issue. I read and interpret ambiguous or incomplete statements for a living. This one barely qualifies as either, it's so laughably obvious. But you know that, don't you, you evil, evil man.
OC
Kidding about the "evil" of course, balb. I know you're moral to a flaw. I must object to your characterization of BCF as a youngster, though. he or she appears fully capable of carrying on an adult 'conversation'. remember, I know your ways and means, because I use them.
OC
Balby is pouting after being hoist on the petard of her own hypocrisy. I give Balby credit for a sense of humour however. The "adult conversation" gambit is one the most laughably pompous bits I've heard in awhile. Not unexpected given the source however.
BCF (kindly) - you don't get it. Don't embarass yourself further.
OC, the "context" of Shaidle's post is the entire body of her blog, not your interpretation of what she "really meant".
I HAVE read, and loved, Swift, Mencken, Twain, and pretty much every other polemicist with whom Shaidle claims kinship. I'm afraid only the tone deaf could mistake her unremitting, shrill hatred for their occasional adoption of satirical personnae. Shaidle ain't got but the one voice.
Now, that voice may, in fact, be a persona. In which case, all my criticism is directed toward that persona, as opposed to the warm, wonderful, life and diversity embracing person that Shailde truly is, but so successfully and consistently submerges in the vicious, fictitious role she inexplicably chooses to play.
I don't count Shaidle with the giants of satire you cite. My one point was that you can't call someone a "hatemonger" based on a sarcastic reference to her own site as a "hateblog". It was clearly not a serious statement. I don't don't know who she may or may not hate, just as I don't know who you may or may not hate (George Bush, social conservatives, maybe?). I don't read her site, actually. Why do you?
OC
"My one point was that you can't call someone a "hatemonger" based on a sarcastic reference to her own site as a "hateblog".
That's correct. You may have noted I somewhat reluctantly offered to dredge up a number of other examples from her site. I'm not sure what the point would be, since you're at liberty to simply dismiss each example as more playful banter or polemical hilarity.
"I don't read her site, actually."
Ah. Well congratulations on your miraculous ability to deduce her real intent. I myself failed to see the humour in the post where she playfully suggested that Aboriginal activists should be given smallpox infected blankets, but I guess I lack your sophistication.
B:
By all means provide links and I'll make my own judgments. I start from the postion that the average person, regardless of political bent, would not seriously advocate the infection of anyone with a horrible disease. rose coloured glasses, I suppose.
OC
Oh, I don't think she's seriously advocating mass murder - she's treating it as a joke, while denying it occurred.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-11-15-0005/
It did, of course.
http://www.stageleft.info/2007/11/15/urq-hilarity/
As for bragging about hatred - I'm afraid where you see irony, I'm seeing pride.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rightgirl/4544049800784790562/#353923
Sorry, but what ever happened to our intermediate words, like harsh, intemperate, crass, ill-conceived? Do we gallop right on to hatemonger at the drop of a hat? Shaidle is on the extreme side, but for the love of God, she's no Himmler. I think she hates, but it's concepts, not people. Personally I just don't have the energy to hate anybody. Scorn and contempt are all I can muster. I must be getting old.
OC
So...maybe all that hatred ISN'T just a "persona"? Maybe it's NOT all tongue in cheek? Maybe it's NOT just "polemics"?
I've never met the woman, and God willing I never will. If you see something behind the hate, bully for you. I don't.
Tell met his, Occ. How do you think Shaidle and her ilk would respond to a post in which a critic of Ezra Levant asked wittily: "Too bad the Holocaust was a myth - we could really use a little Zyklon B on this guy."
That's an exact parallel of her little Aboriginal smallpox comment.
Post a Comment