Alert the CHRC
This Dutch Ad makes fun of Muslim terrorists…
Yo, LawisCool dudes…I laughed. File a complaint.
For more fun check out the fireworks jihadi site LAAF.info
Boom!
Update: the humour challenged and resolutely anonymous commentor from Lawiscool wants to make it clear that Lawiscool and the complainants in what I am assuming the the Steyn case and the people at Lawiscool are not “synonymous”. Is it just me or does this comment read as if it was written by someone whose grasp of English idiom is a bit shaky. Surely “identical” is a better word choice.
Update: Mark Steyn was kind enough to link here…My response can be found here. Cheers Mark.
Update: More fun with the law is cool ankle biters and thanks for the link 5 feet of Fury
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.
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.
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.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Dawg, I have the same policy here…
Alan, remember the lovely “dictated but not read” cut lines on those letters?
And a happy new year to you both!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Raymond, the feds stopped appointing QCs in 1993, however BC still does as does Alberta. Ontario and Quebec do not appoint QCs. You can look up the rest of the provinces on Google.
It you look at the announcements of judicial appointments you’ll find that a QC is always mentioned if it has been awarded.
Holmwood, “Or does s/he not grasp the distinction between capitalizing the term and refraining from caps?”
My working supposition with lawiscool is that English cannot possibly be their first language. No harm in that; but it is a distinct disadvantage in a slanging match with Mark Steyn.
I agree with you completely that lawiscool rushes to invective rather quickly. And have a nasty tendency to generalize beyond what the facts will support. The CPC has no position that I am aware of on the Steyn matter. And as am not a Conservative my views cannot represent the CPC’s.
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.
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.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Lewis acted like a gormless snotty at the Broom. Where to next?
Cheers