Baby Baracudas throw in towel
All of this has resulted in us reviewing the situation and deciding that we will no longer be carrying content related to the Maclean’s case or Mark Steyn. Any legal information that appears similar to the case after this point is pure coincidental. Anyone posting under this name on other sites can assumed to be fraudulent.The complainants in the case, of which only one is represented here in part, should be setting up their own site soon. Please hop over and take your feeding frenzy over there, and let us resume our academic discourse in peace. lawiscool
Couple of points…wow these folks fold fast. Imagine if a real QC jumped out from behind a tort and yelled “boo”. They’d settle for a buck and a half and the client could go hang.
Second, the lawiscool position, along with the “only one is represented here in part” (one wonders which part), is that the CHRC complaint was designed to allow dialogue and debate and that the meanies at Mcleans wouldn’t let the noble law students take over their magazine for an issue. Now, of course, the lawiscool wussies have discovered the mild heat of the Canadian blogosphere and are running away.
Third, all of the people who have been supporting Mark (and Ezra) deserve a pat on the virtual back. Running these wannabes out of blogtown is a Mitzvah (which I say as a social Anglican).
And, finally, too bad you could not stand the virtual heat kids – you were getting writing tips from some of the best in the business (and God knows you need them), learning a bit about advocacy in the internet sandbox and, I suspect, discovering the value of pushing back. All are useful lessons and all were offered in the spirit of a good, clean, fight.
In my experience the people on the righthand, largely libertarian but occasionally socon, side of the Canadian blogosphere don’t take these sorts of disagreements personally. End of the day we know that there will be issues – like freedom of speech and freedom of the press – where ideological differences are dwarfed by the need to protect our most basic freedoms. Sure we play rough; but we respect people who fight their corner. By quiting you’ve proven you can’t even do that.
Too bad.
Update: Welcome SDAers, Markists and Furies. Take a look around and do comment…
January 13th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Reader Tips…
The big mean blogosphere sends the baby baracudas scurrying for the rocks. Blacks-only schooling in the new Ontario millenium – what a difference terminology makes! Clashing civilizations, revisited. Add yours in the comments…....
January 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
How do you spell “nya nya NYA nya nya”?
My day is made!
January 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
To call them pansies is to give flowers a bad name. As for Sayed Sowhateverhisnameis, it’s too late, he ( and the AHRC) have been pwn3d, BIGTIME.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Pretty tough to stand your ground when you set your base in bog snot!
January 14th, 2008 at 2:09 am
As a lawyer I’m thoroughly disgusted with this bunch. I expect first year students to be loony, usually in the area of expanding human freedoms or other interesting causes. This bunch of humourless, timid gits were a real disappointment – i suspect they’re headed for careers in adminstrative law, tribunals, etc.
Sigh…let the lawyer jokes begin..I have feelings too, you know. (well, sort of)
January 14th, 2008 at 3:10 am
These law students read a Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein book and set themselves down the path of social activism (the road to self-determination is gained through self-detonation). What a bunch of over-earnest panty-waists. Take the next train to Berkley because if you can’t cut it here, nobody will be interested in retaining your services as a lawyer here. Of course you could get a job with the HRC or the NDP?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:41 am
“let us resume our academic discourse in peace.”
Running off to grab mommy’s skirts when the mean tough words and ideas tap on their noggins, hardly comprises “academic discourse”. We winced, but quietly, when new liberalism introduced Bono as their patron saint. At a minimum, their creed of diversity should allow us to raise a Steyn to our, and ultimately their, pleasure.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Napoleon once said something about a whiff of grapeshot working wonders on a mob. A little rhetorical grapeshot seems to have the same effect—sends the wee law students running back to the safety of their common rooms where everyone unthinkingly toes the party line. With their pompous language and hilarious solipsisms (“accede defeat” being a highlight), these kiddies seemed awfully proud of themselves, at least until they crossed swords with adult thinkers. One hopes that they will have the honesty to realise how far they still have to go before anyone takes them seriously.
January 14th, 2008 at 6:09 am
It’s like I always say, Dean:
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re probably a lawyer…
January 14th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Yo, D S-F you want lawyer jokes? you got em.
Two alligators sunning themselves on the bank of the ol’ miss just outside “na’lins”. One is 4 metres long, and the other is a puny 2 metres.
Little guy say’s to big guy: saaaaay Billy-Bob, how come ya all bigger’n me? We be born on the same day, we live in the same swamp – so how come?
Big says: weeeeell, I guess size is related to what ya’ all eat. What ya’ all eat boy?
Little guy says – I eat lawyers just like ya’ all do.
Yea but, how ya all catch ‘em?
I just wait in the bushes in the court house parking lot, and when I see the first pair of Gucci’s step out of the Beamer, I jes grabs a leg, shakes the shit out of them, and I eats them.
Big guy says: These yo’ problem right there boy. Once you shake the shit out of a lawyer – all yo’ got is a pair of lips and a brief case.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Very funny, but that would make the bigger *gator full of . . oh, sorry.
Dean, a short question.. Air India?
Another; Picton? One murder, one guilty verdict, one life sentence with appeal only on the basis other felon proven to be the sole perp.
Last question; Karl Scheiber, proven fraud with 3,500 pages of questionable or doctored documents using our taxes and lawyers to avoid justice in Germany?
What is wrong with justice efficiency in Canada? Sorry, impossible question.
What are the chances that better lawyers like yourself could move to improve efficiency and rebuild respect for lawyers in Canada?
OK. I should search using Google, eh? = TG
January 14th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Jay,
Excellent post! Be it the fiascos surrounding Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, I’ve been warning people via my blog of the threat to their freedom of speech.
Most people still aren’t listening – after all, it isn’t a topic concerning Britney Spears or Victoria Beckham – but a growing number of folks are. As such, I believe we’re reaching a tipping point when these kangaroo courts may finally be shut down.
Robert
January 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am
To whoever thinks the law students were out of their depth and that age will make them wiser: seriously? The human rights laws and tribunals were not created and staffed by law students. The stuff you see from the law students is stuff that is taught in law school; professors also believe in this sort of government censorship and probably supported the students from Osgoode. Additionally, as the lawyer probably knows, the stuff coming Canadian Supreme Court can even be wackier. Does the name Wilson ring a bell?
January 14th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
What’s black and brown and looks good on a lawywer? – a Dobernam Pinscher. (this is, in fact, the oldest know lawyer joke. ed.)
January 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
What’s the difference between a dead lawyer in the road and a dead rattlesnake?
There are skid marks up to the rattlesnake.
Don’t blame me. You guys started it.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Dear LawIsCutesie:
“Sod off, swampie!”
(to use the immortal words of the Petroleum traders).
January 14th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Is there any chance these wiener bun wanna be lawyers will understand that what they are learning in school from their lefty profs didn’t do them much good in the real world?
Can they understand that they haven’t been taught to think critically and honestly?
Will they be sharp enough to wonder if they are getting their moneys worth at that law school?
Will they sue their profs and the school?
The spanking they got must hurt, that should merit some damages, shouldn’t it?
There is plenty of evidence to show how hopelessly outclassed they were by laymen.
But first they will have to figure out how to use the pencil sharpener.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:59 am
“...let us resume our academic discourse in peace.”
Oh, now I get it. These geniuses were studying law and were “interrupted” by this debate. It just fell in their laps and, like a student assignment, they had to write some reports on it.
These meatheads stepped into the ring, thought it would be fun to rail against Steyn et al, and get some attaboys. Then it bit them on the hand and, though anonymous in the first place, they ran for it.
What a joke. If Osgoode is churning out spineless hacks like these, I’ll represent myself, thanks.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
They truly are children.
First they pick a fight then they run to Mommy State to protect them from harsh words.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Last one (maybe). The coldest place in Canada? Corner of Portage & Main Winn. Man. How do you know when it`s really cold there? When you see a lawyer waiting there for the traffic light to change with his hands in his own pockets.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a carp? One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish. Go Ezra and Mark. MD.