A small point

James Goneaux
#1. April 11th, 2008, at 8:56 AM.

Yep, I’ve believe that from the get go: while truth is a defence, PROVING that truth means the plaintiff often wins by default…

Blazingcatfur
#2. April 11th, 2008, at 7:30 PM.

Is it possible that Lemires new demand for all the CHRC records of staff pseudonyms, related e-mails etc is the inspiration for Warman’s Kamikaze lawsuit?

Sean
#3. April 11th, 2008, at 9:36 PM.

Rogers can also testify as to their DHCP settings policy and how long machines can own the same dynamic IP. Even if they don’t have the record that conclusively proves that Lucie owned the address at that particular moment, I wouldn’t be surprised if they can establish a high probability that Lucie was the one to spew the vile Cools posting onto the Net.

Rose
#4. April 12th, 2008, at 1:05 AM.

There are questions that need to be answered, and the information gleaned from the libel suits should get those questions answered. Or if Lamire files a appeal with the Supreme Court, the HRC’s employees “I forgot, or I don’t remember” won’t cut it in a real court room. I can only imagine how upset a REAL judge would be with their attempts to evade the truth by envoking Section 25 (I think that’s the section about evidence). LOL how utterly insane to allow a piece of legislation regarding evidence for HRC’s petty tribunals to mirror our National Security Act. Utterly inane and unacceptable.

I don’t buy into the Tin Foilers theory that the IP addy was a floater, sorry I’m not buying that little red herring. I can check my IP address hourly and it’s never changed ever since I bought this house. Second what are the laws of probability that a complete stranger would post on a near dead forum would be assigned the very IP addy that an employee of the HRC apparently used previously to post white supremacist crap on said forum?

Third, the HRC’s employees admit to using monikers and posting hatefilled post on forums to entrapped people so why should the Cools post be negated as mere chance? Why was it pulled from the Lamire hearing, why won’t they answer the questions poised to them?

The truth will come out, it’s only a matter of time. Do I believe Warman made the post I’m not a hundred percent sure, I do know that the chances of this being a complete stranger who just happened to use an IP addy used previously by a HRC employee isn’t mere chance. The math doesn’t add up, also why wasn’t the person who wrote the Cools post charged under Section 13? It’s the worst piece of filth I’ve ever read on the internet, again why ignore that person and continue persecuting Lamire?

All the questions I have lead me straight back to the HRC and it’s employees and it’s number one complainant, reasonable doubt isn’t applicable under British Common Law. I’ve read enough transcripst to have rendered my verdict.

Rod Blaine
#5. April 12th, 2008, at 11:53 AM.

Interesting parallel in both Warman vs Levant and the Ontario HRC vs Steyn. In both cases, the HR industry sought to avoid or minimise due process by claiming that the slapdown sought or imposed was below the legal threshold. In other words,

(a) Warman is arguing “I’m only seeking $50,000 in damages, so we can bypass all that cumbersome bother about discovery and cross-examination”; whikle

(b) the Ontario HRC held “We lack jurisdiction to make a finding of Islamophobia against Steyn and Maclean’s, but we find them to be Islamophobic anyway.”

The theory behind the civil lawsuits vs criminal trials distinction, as behind the distinction between administrative tribunals vs proper judicial courts, and between small claims vs large amounts, is that society can legitimately provide quick ‘n’ dirty justice on the cheap if less is at stake. (You don’t get habeas for parking fines).

Three problems with this distinction, though:

(i) To a large govt agency, $49,999 is spare change. To a blogger or independent journalist, it may be a year’s gross income.

(ii) Even if the monetary value is small, the official “stigma” (as they say about criminal sentences proper) is great in the eyes of Joe or Jacques Layperson. “Hey, d’ya hear that some official court-type body found that X was a racist?” “Eee-ew!” Cue Burke and his denunciation of the ship-money. Would fifty shillings have made Mr Hampden a pauper? No, but being declared a racial/ religious bigot without any opportunity to respond in kind, would have made him a pariah.

(iii) It is objectionable that a private individual is enriching him/herself by bringing this plaints and lawsuits. If bullies are blockading the school toilet and demanding a dollar to pee, I’ll be damned if I’ll pay them and reward their extortion racket.

There are cases in other common-law jurisdictions that if a tribunal or commission editorialises and makes a critical finding against an identifiable individual, then - even apart from any fine, disqualification, licence cancellation, etc imposed - that individual has the right to demand procedural justice before such a finding is pronounced. Surely Canadian law hasn’t been Napoleonised so far (yet) that that common-law principle has been abandoned?

buckets
#6. April 12th, 2008, at 5:23 PM.

I’ve re-interpreted the technical aspect of this here and concluded that the Cools poster could be almost any Rogers customer.

Sean
#7. April 12th, 2008, at 11:46 PM.

Buckets, with the same oddball OS/browser combo and posting the same vile spew? What are the odds of *that*?

buckets
#8. April 13th, 2008, at 6:24 AM.

The combo of OS and browser are not all that odd — something in the order of 10% of surfers in the fall of 2003 used Windows 98 and IE 6. And once we’re talking about a pool of 700,000, 10% is a lot. Now, people will believe what they want to believe, but I wouldn’t want to bet my house on it. Sadly, some well meaning people have.

Mark Francis
#9. April 13th, 2008, at 8:01 PM.

I was using that config in 2003, and was posting to FD then.

Maybe I did the Cools post?