Alert the CHRC

LawIsCool
#1. December 28th, 2007, at 3:40 PM.

The complainants in the case are not synonymous with this website, in part or in its entirety.
You would be wise to be informed of this distinction before making any such statements.

Alan
#2. December 29th, 2007, at 8:26 PM.

“You would be wise to be informed of this distinction before making any such statements.”

…or what?

And is this good English? Can one be wise by the passive act of another informing him? Reminds me of a dictaphone drafted legal letter. Those were great.

Dr.Dawg
#3. December 30th, 2007, at 12:19 AM.

Did you pick up on “irreverent comments will be retained” at Lewiscool’s?

http://lawiscool.com/2007/12/22/steyn-fans-spam-law-is-cool/

Gotta love it.

Best for the New Year, Jay.

Kralizec
#5. January 2nd, 2008, at 9:43 AM.

The delightfully named Omar Ha-Redeye of “Law Is Cool” (sic), or one of his many clones, took that menacing tone with us, too. He made himself Exhibit A for one of our points: We have no interest in ostensibly civil debate with anyone who’s part of an indistinguishable crowd that includes men trying to hijack other debaters’ resources.

http://kralizec.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/america-alone-welfare-and-warfare-cont/

“Law Is Cool” (sic) is an association, some of the members of which want to have it both ways: We’re indistinguishable, and you had better keep us distinct. Some of us just want to discuss the issues “sensibly,” and some of us just want MacLean’s publishers to fork over to Mohamed El-Masry the magazine they spent their lives building up. So “amuse” us, while we “monitor” and “document” you.

Horny Toad
#6. January 2nd, 2008, at 11:00 PM.

It is interesting to me how the “complaintants” and their spokespeople want us to beleive that all they really wanted from MacLeans was a change to respond. If one was uninformed one would equate that with a simple “letter to the editor” type of response.BUT, if you actually take the time to read MacLean’s response it is obvious that they wanted to “take over” the whole magazine for one issue.

Just a “subtle” difference.

LawIsCool
#7. January 3rd, 2008, at 4:25 AM.

Actually, it’s pretty clear.

We stated from the outset that this case was related to Daniel Simard, nobody else.

Just seems like Conservatives need more scapegoats so they broaden the net, thereby diminishing any sympathies they may otherwise have had.

Raymond
#8. January 3rd, 2008, at 4:32 AM.

Steyn keeps citing his QC lawyer as if it’s something special. It may have been back in the days, but they stopped making those appointments in 1985.

All the QC means is that they are old. Not even necessarily a good lawyer even, but old, and at one time, politically connected in order to obtain the appointment.

Anything else is just legal marketing to increase your billable hours.

Holmwood
#9. January 3rd, 2008, at 5:23 AM.

I find it fascinating that LawIsCool decides to slam Conservatives — not just people who may have conservative beliefs, but actual party members.

I’ve seen no indication of where the CPC stands on this issue.

Or does s/he not grasp the distinction between capitalizing the term and refraining from caps?

I wonder if LawIsCool’s vicious remarks about “Conservatives” needing a scapegoat — a term potentially rich with anti-Semetic and dark religious undertones — is potentially subjecting “Conservative” to hate and violence?

It certainly seems plausible. If I didn’t happen to know a few Conservatives — I myself am not one — I might be inclined to assume they were a hateful and evil people against whom action had to be taken on the basis of LawIsCool’s remarks.

Clearly, to LawIsCool, Conservatives are a vicious lot that brutalize and persecute others.

LawIsCool, in a single post, has demonstrated what appears to this untutored eye to be quite nasty hate speech against a minority group of Canadians, protected under the Charter of Rights.

It would seem appropriate to examine legal and quasi-legal (e.g. HRC tribunal) options.

I wonder if someone other than LawIsCool will start playing at this game?

In previously making apparently false accusations against Steyn of being a spammer (and Steyn supporters), LawIsCool appears to be quite adept at hurling hateful accusations and speech at minority groups.

(What could be more hateful in this enlightened age than being called a spammer?)

That’d be another complaint.

What a fun game this is.

And just think: LawIsCool’s freedom is not at stake.

Yet.

Feynman & Coulter’s Love Child
#11. January 3rd, 2008, at 8:40 AM.

$500 says “LawIsCool” aren’t actual lawyers, have stolen the legal-related posts from some other blogger’s RSS feed, and are in fact a couple of homosexuals in Toronto who enjoy making Muslims seem completely off the deep end.

lewis
#12. January 4th, 2008, at 4:33 AM.

Holmwood:

The irony and hypocrisy in your post will keep me smiling until 2009. You twist and transform lawiscool’s post into something sadistic and full of ill-will meanwhile you are in support of Steyn’s racial slander - oh my.
Your writing skills are obviously above average - in style only. Your ability to grasp content and argumentation are at the level of a 5th grader.

J.M. Heinrichs
#13. January 4th, 2008, at 11:29 AM.

Lewis acted like a gormless snotty at the Broom. Where to next?

Cheers