A Quick Note
April 18th, 2008
| Tags: CHRC, free speech, great good fun
Some people have suggested, not unreasonably, that my complaints to the CHRC might not meet the “good faith” test. Should the Commission try this on they will be hit with a libel suit which will make the Warman/Kinsella actions look like chump change.
My complaints are made in entirely good faith and within the letter of the absurd law which is s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Any suggestion to the contrary will be greeted with a writ.
Update: My pal Edward Micheal George (and what sort of name is that) has a rather efficient solution to the whole damned thing. Between my other pal Sean and he I suspect we could have fun for about a decade.
Hope that complaint wasn’t faxed in double sided.
Whatever, Currie. I don’t know that “Jay” is so great as names go. Just a jumped-up letter, really.
Isn’t that like the guy insuring his expensive cigar collection, smoking them, and then claiming they were destroyed by fire?
No, it isn’t. (And you’ve left out the punchline to that old joke, which was the cigar guy was prompty charged with arson.)
They have no grounds to reject this complaint. It is brought with exactly the same degree of good faith as every one of Warman’s claims. To accuse Jay Currie of bad faith without grounds is defamatory on its face, but in the circumstances it amounts to a statement that Jay Currie is less honest than an admitted perjurer and proven law-breaker like Warman, which is gravely defamatory.
Fake law talk from fake lawyers.
I note you studiously avoid discussing the merits, bcl.
If you insist on sending the CHRC pitbulls after suspects, may I suggest a complaint against Richard Warman? Surely the comments attributed to him that were directed towards Senator Anne Cools could make for a landmark case for the CHRC.
When considering the vile comments posted by Warman ( aka Jadewarr ), the HRC could easily use a case like this to silence its critics about the good work it does by making an example of the likes of the hatefull Mr. Warman.
Its crap Dcardno. CHRC will reject, and Jay will whine.
“Fake lawyers…”
Oh man, he’s dumber than I thought.
ah wake up you mugs…whether they accept the complaint or not it’s a win win for the righties.
you guys are like …oh i can’t remember but he said ‘you pity the plumage but not the dieing bird”.
Its crap Dcardno. CHRC will reject, and Jay will whine.
Thanks for the incisive analysis, bcl. Care to come up with a reason that the CHRC could use to reject this complaint? I mean, one that wouldn’t invalidate other complaints that they have previously accepted from Mr Warman?
“Its crap Dcardno. CHRC will reject, and Jay will whine.”
Wow, is this that threatening BCL? The CHRC has a couple of serious complaints before them. Both, prima facie raise the sorts of issues the CHRC has ruled on before.
What, pray, are their grounds to “reject”?
You cannot imagine how much fun it would be to bring the CHRC before the Federal Court on a Judicial review of their grounds.
Which, I suspect, they are well aware of given the dogs breakfast their own investigators have created. Thanks Lucy.
And, meanwhile, BCL, on the merits, can I take it that you approve of the use of the Kosher mark to label politicians as approved by Jews? Or that you are down with discribing the display of desription of the pics of terrorists at Sihk parades.
‘Cause if you are you’re a speecher through and through.