Lucy slapps my pals
Ezra, Kate, Kathy, Free Dominion and The National Post.
This is not unexpected and the people involved have been preparing for some time. However, the stakes are very high.
The American blogosphere is all over this and donations to the defence funds are arriving. But this will be a long haul and one which will take a good deal of money. I am going to be traveling for the next couple of days with limited internet access. When I get back I want to start organizing ongoing fundraising. Meanwhile, contribute directly.
One key thing: Warman is betting all the marbles here. His credibility and the credibility of the CHRC are now in play. Warman was the CHRC’s creature and, I suspect the evidence will show, the CHRC became his creature as he casually crossed the line between investigator and complainant. By filing this litigation Warman is putting his reputation on the line but, more importantly, he is putting the reputation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission into issue.
Given what is already on the record – in particular the fact that Warman posted under aliases – it is difficult to see what reputation he has left to defend and as he goes down he will drag the Commission itself into the light and, to mix a metaphor, through the mud.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I wish I had time to blog about this.
This is going to get very interesting indeed. Both Warman and the CHRC have been routinely accused of wrongdoing by a number of people with whom we are both familiar. Indeed, the CHRC has not acted yet, but possibly should, against unproven claims that its officers are guilty of theft of communications.
This, I submit, is qualitatively different stuff than merely (as Shaidle says) “saying something (Warman) doesn’t like.” My bar on free speech is high, and Brad Wall didn’t come close to it, for example (although he was cheered on by not a few conservatives). But accusing people of unethical, even criminal, conduct without proof?
I guess we’ll get what proof there is at the discovery stage. Or not. Have some popcorn, Jay. Oh, and have a beer.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:33 am
“Have some popcorn, Jay. Oh, and have a beer.”
I’ll have to wait until the childcare cheque comes in ;)
It will be interesting for the reasons you mention as well as an examination of the overall conduct of the Commission and its employees.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:22 am
We will win – regardless of outcome.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:46 am
‘my bar on free speech is very high’
well of course it is…but i’m thinking about how high you set the bar and still not even the hint of a nosebleed…..could you possibly set it high enough to include pastor boissoin…and mark lemire…and ezra levant…?
...by the way “doctor’....may i ask a personal question ?
i wonder why there are no citations footnotes or any acknowledgement whatsoever of your obvious political/philosophical contributions in jonah goldberg’s latest bestseller ?
please don’t be coy…i can spot your hand a mile away….even though you must be very very old by now and multi-lingual to boot….let’s see now…german and russian and italian are familiar tongues are they not?...and a smattering of arabic of course.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Considering the Privacy Commissioner is looking into the matter, yes, it will be interesting…
April 10th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Warman structured the suit in such as way as to avoid discovery, Dr. Dawg. That is why he kept his damages to $50,000.
The burden of proof in a civil case is ‘a balance of probabilities’. Unfortunately for Warman, even without discovery, we are in ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ territory.
Can I have some of that popcorn? :-)
April 10th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Jay, Dr. Dawg, anybody:
I’ve only been tracking this for a few months and am a little shakey on the ancient history. Am I right in believing Warman has clearly admitted on record to posting on “suspect” sites under a pseudonym in order to egg them on in some way?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Won’t BE much of a discovery stage. As Ezra Levant notes, The Bravest Man Warren Kinsella Knows™ has decided his reputation has been traduced to the tune of exactly fifty thousand trudeaus. Coincidentally – gee, what’s the odds?! – that is the maximum he can claim while still availing himself of the expedited (ie, limited-discovery) procedure.
Oh, I’ve no doubt ol’ AryanHuntarr666 was straining at the leash to hit the Two Kats of Kilkenny with some real damages – one hundred, two hundred, ONE MILLION canadians – but unfortunately the Reputat-O-Meter told him his standing in the eyes of right-thinking fellow citizens had dropped by only $49,999 when he was accused of being excessively litigious. Way to prove you’re not excessively litigious, GoeringWasGreat007!
Speaking from a jurisdiction safely outside the reach of TBMWKK’s cronies on the various Rights Inquisitions, I offer a proposal. How about Lucy donates all his winnings, over and above his legal costs, to one of the various Muslim women’s groups fighting to stop honour killings?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Dawg, perhaps you could provide an alternative credible these to explain how it appears the CHRC used an IP address belonging to a private citizen without her knowledge or permission?
I mean, it’s all in plain view from the court hearings, from what I can see.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am
In honor of the cause, I’d like to officially name the affair after the Jackal and his pal Lucy, inspired by the old David Letterman Top Ten List of Least Popular Campbell’s Soup Flavours (circa roughly 1988):
Old Fashioned Grease and Weasel.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
One wonders why Lucy hasn’t gone after Steyn, who must be the juiciest trophy, both financially and ideologically. After all, Steyn made one of the most unequivocal linkages between Lucy and l’affaire Cools.
As Ezra suggested, he is going for several smaller bites ($50k each), each small enough to keep unwelcome scrutiny and discovery to a minimum. To go after Steyn and Macleans of course would bring in Rogers, who might just make that extra effort to find those logs.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It doesn’t come to discovery. See Newman’s post about 2/3 of the way down:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/richard-warman-has-sued-me-and.html
Warman does not want to sit through a cross.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I’ve been reading transcripts at Free Dominion and the question I pose is: Will Warman show up for his civil cases or will he blackberry his testimony to the Judge?
LOL talk about arrogance.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
For those suggesting this is a “free speech” issue think again. This is a matter of libel. One in which Ezra is all too familiar both as a plaintiff and a defendant.
Mr. Warman it seems has secured one of canada’s top libel lawyers. So this is pretty serious. Dr. Dawg has got it right as well, the allegations against Warman re the CHRC business is just that allegations. None of which can be used unless fully proved. The accusations of criminal activity lodged by some in the right wing blogosphere against Warman and the CHRC are in my view actionable. They certainly will have absolutely no bearing on the libel proceedings except in Warman’s favour where he will use them to prove ongoing libel.
Sit back relax, this is a slow process but in the end those who libel have much to be wary of.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Not sure what discovery rules are like in Canada, but when I heard about this I was reminded of the movie character (not sure which movie) who said a subpoena is a beautiful thing.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Is Warman going for $50,000 per defendant or $50,000 altogether?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I wonder if, as Ezra has put in another case, the discovery process will be, in fact, “proctological”....
First step: subpeona all HRC computers…I see an expensive process indeed.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
IP, the total claim is $50,000. He is holding all defendants “jointly and severally”, meaning he gets $50,000, from any or all, to a total of 50K. More importantly, he is also asking for punitive damages. Structuring the suit to avoid discovery in order to avoid having any possible connection he might have had with the postings (even if he did not make them, as he claims) at issue brought to light is an abuse of legal process, in my view, and may well deny the defendants an equitable hearing. It is much easier for counsel to challenge the introduction of collateral info at trial then might be the case in the relative informality of discovery.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Jay,
Will you just go and read this:
http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-there-is-room-for-doubt-about.html
and
http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/misc/meaculpa.html
I support reforming our libel laws, and have no problem scrutinizing the methods and reach of the HRCs, but falsely blaming a person for the content of a racist, misogynist public post is not a use of free speech I can support.
Want to see some libel cases worth fighting? Go to
http://crookeslawsuits.pbwiki.com/
April 13th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Tell me, folks, does Canadian jurisprudence still retain any semblance of the common-law doctrine of apprehended bias – the principle that a decision-maker is disqualified from handling a particular matter if the ordinary man [sic] on the Charlottetown bar stool might reasonably assume that person is not impartial? – that even though the “great and the good” know that of course their friend is to be trusted, the great unwashed may not have the same sophisticated grasp of nuance?
If so, I submit that the known actions of HRC gumshoes in using aliases may well make all future HRC hate-crimes inquests vulnerable to invalidation for apprehended bias. Even if the “Getting Warmen-er, Getting Cools-er” link is, as the Scots say, Not Proven. Accurate or not, it’s plausible. The standard for apprehended bias is not criminal proof b~ r~ doubt, it’s simply balance of probs.
I regard it as grimly amusing that some of those now cautioning “Don’t be too quick to assume that a known left-wing sock-puppet-master would have used a sock-puppet to vilify a Visible Minority official immediately after the latter publicly opposes a left-wing cause…” were somewhat less, ah, delicate about preserving the presumption of innocence vs. guilt by association when the jackboot was on the other foot (“Steyn’s using Lemire’s lawyer! Here’s someone who looks like Lemire standing next to Zundel! Ergo Steyn’s a Nazi!”).