Enough Already
The Jackal is suing Ezra again. Or, technically, threatening to by way of a libel notice. Whatever.
Reading the libel notice I was struck with what a grand waste of time these sorts of suits are. Assume that every one of the Jackal’s claims can be substantiated; not one of them will substantially diminish his reputation. Of course anyone is entitled to sue for anything and leave it up to the judge to decide.
However, filing lawsuits which complain of purely minimal slights creates a reputation of a different sort. The Jackal is free to file whatever litigation he wants and we are free to consider what sort of person flies off to court over such slights.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The notorious Aleister Crowley actually won a lawsuit once. However the judge said that while the newspaper was incorrect, Crowley’s reputation was such that there could be no possible damage to it.
Seems that someone like the Lying Jackal, who brags about being a backroom brawler and, heh, “ass kicker”, has spent the better part of the last decade or so creating a reputation that can’t really be blackened much more.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
How many cans of creamed corn is Ezra being sued for this time?
December 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The writ hasn’t been filed but I would expect the summary limit of 50,000
Maybe Ezra should offer to settle for a can of creamed corn.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I remember at the time I commented on Ezra’s site about saying that Kinsella had been fired from the NP. Asked if he had prrof of that; I don’t think he ever replied. I realize that’s only one of many allegations, but I think it will be hard for Ezra to defend.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Dave, you may, in a narrow sense, be right; however, my point is that none of the material alleged by the Jackal amounts to a hill of beans. Freelancers get spiked, it happens, they move on.
Running off to Court on this sort of thing – while certainly an option – just makes a person look weak and thin skinned.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Once a document is part of the public domain it is acceptable to apply a “Fair comment” the inquiry meets that criteria. I suspect he has no intention of following through with the lawsuit but doing what he does best smearing and bullying anyone who dareth speaketh his name in the negative perhaps?
I personally like P.I. it’s amazing what they can dig up by investigating your enemies. One’s neighbours are a font of dirt and info in a lawsuit.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I say plaster this latest threat all over the media and attach Iggy’s name to it as well as this is his little flying monkey.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Jay,
I think Kinsella’s point is that he didn’t get “spiked” – he quit. If that is true, then to suggest that he did get fired is defamatory—and probably malicious, since Levant writes for the rag in question.
It would like my suggesting that you beat your wife, then shrugging, “Hey, lots of guys smack the old lady about – get over it.” Except, unlike Levant, I don’t have the means to determine if that’s true or not.
For the record, I am not suggesting that you beat your wife; indeed, it is my impression and understanding that you are gentle and considerate husband and a loving and attentive father whose only fault is that he spends too much time at the computer reading (and sadly, believing) Levant’s prolix ravings and posting nonsense.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
And what a marvelously trivial point the Jackal manages to make. (In the alternative he may well plead that he was never hired in the first place but was, rather, a regular, occasional, contributor.) Whatever.
As to my wife: well just the regular Saturday night kinda a thing; but you can be damn sure Ezra can’t verify it.
My more general point is that – while certainly legal and aboveboard – the Jackal suing on trivia demonstrates the man is a putz.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Claiming Kinsella makes common cause with anti-Semites is more than slight.
Claiming Kinsella was fired is more than slight.
Claiming that Kinsella took part in a criminal conspiracy is more than slight.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The only way Kinsella’s reputation could be damaged would be if he were caught behaving like a thinking, mature adult.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jay,
Most people don’t consider getting fired trivial. In fact, alleging that someone was fired when they weren’t can result in a substantial award of damages: Kerr v. Conlogue, (1992), 65 B.C.L.R. (2d) 70.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Ah, you’re back Mordechai…
On all three fronts, not much more than a slight.
But, and here is my point, a big man would let such things roll off his back. It takes a very little man to actually run to mummy and file a writ. Frankly, given the Jackal’s general attitude, I am surprised and rather disappointed that he would file such a sissy suit.
tw, it would be interesting to know what the Jackal’s actual employment status was at the Post. Was he freelance? Did he have a contract? Was the contract broken? If it was broken why did he not sue for wrongful dismissal?
These, and many other questions will be interesting in this most recent bit of lawfare. And remember, tw, you often bang the drum against SLAPP suits.
“Fired” may be a term of art, or it may simply describe the situation in which a columnist appears one week and disappears the next.
But only a weenie would litigate it.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Jay,
Kinsella says he quit. And there’s no reason not to believe him.
If what Kinsella says is true, then we’re not dealing with terms of art or subtleties of employment contracts or mischosen words or even old-fashioned insults. And we’re certainly not talking about lawfare or SLAPP suits. We’re talking about one man knowingly or recklessly telling a lie about another, in black and white, for all the world to see from now to the end of the world.
If that doesn’t merit a libel lawsuit, few things will. The fact that it’s clearly part of a larger campaign suggests that malice may be an issue as well.
I don’t agree with Werner Patels about much, but he’s right about this: Levant has headed out past where the streetcars run. I don’t whether he figures his PayPal begging bowl and stupid people like Rose are going to save his bacon, but I don’t see his record in libel suits improving in the near term.
BTW since you’re such a big man, why not share a few details about yourself – enough to give lies an air of credibility—and let the blogosphere loose, with your consent to say what they will? Nothing to worry about – it’ll be water off a duck’s back.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
tw, there is quit and there is “quit”. Neither are particularly interesting: on the one hand you have, walked away. On the other you have “pushed”. The line is rather broad and certainly nothing that you really want to litigate about.
It not only does not merit a libel suit, it is silly to even imagine that it could. Which is not to say that the plaintiff might not be successful. But, in the end, he’ll still be a putz.
As to your last graf, unlike you I publish under my own name. Warts and all. Crappy as much of “it” is, it is mine. As a very old friend of mine said of the ‘net” it is all virtual heat.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Jay,
You’ve made yourself a public figure under your own name. And whether your work under that name is crappy or not, someone with a little information could do considerable damage to your reputation with a few well-placed lies should they put their mind to it. That damage would not be limited to the ‘net, nor would your attempts to correct the record on this little corner of heaven have much impact. The purpose of libel law is to discourage just those sorts of attacks.
I assume you nothing about the actual circumstances of Kinsella’s departure from the Post. Unless you do, spare me the tiresome parsing of words like “quit” and “fired” that have plain and ordinary meanings. Saying someone was fired from a job when they were not is not only actionable, but it’s the sort of attack on reputation that most reasonable people feel justifies a lawsuit. Only a putz without a clue about the law would think otherwise.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
tw, I have been blogging under my own name – and commenting too – for six years. My sins are an open book. The Lying Jackal has posted lies about me and I have laughed it off. Why? Because the lies are de mimimus. If the silly man wants to call me a crpto-Nazi and demonstrate his ignorance of the meaning of “crypto” he is at liberty to beclown himself. And I am free to call him a liar. And a Jackal.
I know enough about the end of the Jackal’s gig to know that “fired” is not beyond the realm of possibility. Not that that matters. The description of the end of the Jackal is a matter of opinion and, as such, is protected.
Big people get over it. You want to publish demonstrable lies about me, go nuts. It’s the net. Everything discounted to the n’th degree. If he was wrongfully dismissed he has an action against the rather deeper pockets of the National Post. Or at least he did – so far as I can see he is out of time.
You, however, miss the point: big people never go to Court on this sort of crap. They suck it up and move on. It takes a real putz to actually sue over it.
And nothing is more real than the Lying Jackal in full spate.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Jay,
Whether or not Kinsella was fired is NOT a matter of opinion. Not even close. While there is some fuzziness in law on the distinction between fact and opinion, there is none here. Zero. Zilch. Either he was fired. Or he quit. If he was fired, Levant has a defence. If he quit, Ezra’s acolytes better hit the PayPal button hard.
It is your opinion, on the other hand, that “big people” don’t care if others tell lies about whether they left a job voluntarily or otherwise. You are entitled to that opinion, but it is completely divorced from reality.
As is, incidentally, your notion that Kinsella would be out of time for a wrongful dismissial suit if he had been fired. He left the Post within the last year. How long do you think he has to commence an action? And why do you insist on making an ass of yourself by offering these pronouncements on legal matter without a lick of research?
December 12th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Well, I’ll leave the intriguing question of the Jackal’s employment status for the courts.
As to being out of time I have not checked but it is clear that the Post did not dispense with his services soon enough.
(If you want to look it up be my guest.)
I happily stand by the view that only a putz would take this into Court. And if the Jackal wants to sue on that remark I will be delighted to litigate the matter of his putziness. Bring it on…Email for my new addy for service.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Interesting discussion. Jay sad to say you are losing it. Really Jay, as far as right wing bloggers go you always seemed a bit more reasonable than some of your fellow bloggers. So even you must admit that Ezra leaps over the line using malice as a weapon against anyone he disagrees with.
Last night I took some gravol and went back onto his site for the first time in a while. Frankly I fully understand why Kinsella chose to protect his reputation against Ezra’s venom. Problem is whether or not Ezra has made himself judgment proof.
I also note with interest that the garbage he spews against Kinsella is matched only by the obsessive lies he hurls at Bernie Farber of the CJC. I am a freelance writer myself and have done much research on a number of issues of interest to Canadians. I know something about how to find information. I was astounded at the number of factual lies Ezra wrote about Farber coupled with some of the most poisonous language I have ever read. I admire Farber for ignoring Levant (which must drive him nuts) but fully understand when Kinsella decides to protect his reputation by means of civil law. After all people work hard at establishing reputations. Lies and malice ought not to be permitted to go unchallenged.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am
To all TLJ butt snorkelers here trying to defend his specious thin skinned litigiousness; had it ever dawned on you lock-step Jackal acolytes that Levant has far more knowledge/evidence regarding his adversary’s Nat Post tenure and Adscam doings than he is releasing? Could it be he is constantly goading a reactionary intemperate opponent into an embarrassing public exposure by trial – is this possible? Probable? Otherwise you are positing that Levant has subhuman intelligence as a lawyer and tactician and is pretty much self destructive…if that is your implication then I want to play poker with you dorks who vastly underestimate the opponent. :-D
December 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“And there’s no reason not to believe him.”
What I found most interesting was that at the same time he “quit”, both Kate and Kathy were given op-ed space in The Post. They may or may not have shoved him out the door, but the owners of The Post certainly gave his nose a good tweak as he passed through it. There are probably parts of Ontario that are still steaming from Warren’s reaction to those columns. :-)
December 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Voltair, Ezra has more than aptly demonstrated that he can and does get it wrong=often and that is being kind. I have no reason to believe that he has any special information other than the bizarre fantasies he conjurs up.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Can anybody see the forest. No? Too many trees in the way? Ig hired Kantsellya. Ig is now Leader of Opp or Coalition. Shall we bring his spin doctor into the limelight? The one named in Adscam? If we happen to hate a Jackal but can’t reach him maybe we can make his master see what a liability he is and have him put down. Through out some rotten meet and watch the fool swallow it hook line & sinker. More publicity anyone? Adscam/Public Revulsion/ Liberal Pary/Election. Anyone got any string to tie this mess together? Oh Ezra bring that steel cable over here!
December 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Shit! Meant “throw out”
December 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Meat