Lucy…Barracks Room Lawyer

Blazingcatfur
#1. April 1st, 2008, at 5:57 PM.

Imagine how our armed forces feel knowing Lucy Warman guards the “home front”. Expect a HRC complaint on behalf of the Taliban shortly.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#2. April 1st, 2008, at 7:33 PM.

It’s gratifying to know Canadian fox holes will be made safe from extraterrestial lizard attacks.

Flea
#3. April 1st, 2008, at 8:29 PM.

And here I was thinking this farce could not be any worse.

Prime Minister Harper: It is time to exercise some executive authority.

Dr.Dawg
#4. April 1st, 2008, at 9:44 PM.

So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?

Just Me
#5. April 1st, 2008, at 10:28 PM.

What a leetch upon the Canadian Taxpayer.

Jay Currie
#6. April 1st, 2008, at 10:57 PM.

A question, Dawg, Lucy might have asked as he brought action after action against people with whom he disagreed.

Dr.Dawg
#7. April 1st, 2008, at 11:12 PM.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Levant is increasingly revealing himself to be a savage, and you guys are revelling in it.

At least you aren’t calling for his execution. Be a shame to regulate the Internet, though, eh? The CHRC is the real enemy, we we all know. Right?

christopher rivers
#9. April 2nd, 2008, at 12:19 AM.

“Levant is increasingly revealing himself to be a savage,”

Oh, that Ezra Levant, stalking the internet, increasingly out of control like a young man in Lord of the Flies!
And no, dawg, you aren’t Piggy.

b_C
#10. April 2nd, 2008, at 12:38 AM.

Wow - five issues in ten words!

“So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?”

-Man? How sexist is that, eh?
-Livelihood? Try “mission” or “supplementary pecuniary aspirations?” And what of those feeding his lust?
-Now? As if past conduct leading to the present state of affairs is suddenly irrelevant.
-Fair? As if that thought should ever have entered into the equation in the past. Ask some respondents about fairness.
-Game? ‘Course, that’s all it has ever been for Lucy, hasn’t it?

Care to try for 60% BS, next round of the defence?

Just Me
#11. April 2nd, 2008, at 1:11 AM.

Dawg,

Maybe we should turn crazy bigots like those you have linked to into martyrs by restricting their human right to freedom of speech?

Or, like most sane people, we could read and dismiss those lunacies or press criminal charges.

Big Brother does not know best.

DDT
#12. April 2nd, 2008, at 1:18 AM.

Perhaps Dawg its a case of maximum disruption?
What goes around comes around.

Security
#13. April 2nd, 2008, at 1:18 AM.

Dog triumphantly squeaks “So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?”

This man Dog? This Warman character? First, not a man, nor are any that would support him ie you. Please don’t take that as an ad hominem - I mean it with every beat of my evil little conservative heart. Too bad you won’t get it, now or ever. But to answer your question: In a heartbeat, live on national television with a friggin’ skirt on. Twice.

st
#14. April 2nd, 2008, at 1:35 AM.

Dawg: So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?

Since much of his “livelihood” appears to involve posting hate/entrapment messages in order to supply himself with HRC complaints to profit from…then, yes, it seems reasonable.

cinyc
#15. April 2nd, 2008, at 4:08 AM.

Dawg-
Richard Warman’s actions aren’t above scrutiny. Canadian taxpayers have a right to know what he’s getting paid by them to do.

“Maximum Disruption” is a two-way street. It’s not “the most fun” when you’re on the receiving end, though. What goes around comes around.

James Goneaux
#16. April 2nd, 2008, at 5:57 AM.

Dawg:

As you seem to think that Ken McVay is a good sort of person, what do you think of this opinion of internet censors:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/der-spiegel-online/interview-961018.html

Do you share the willingness to grant freedom of speech even to the enemies of freedom?

McVay: Yes, I do. What possible good comes, for instance, from forcing these Nazis underground? Will that make them stop hating? Has it ever stopped the hate? As a people, we must start taking responsibility for our behavior, and for our problems, rather than expecting “government” to do it for us. In short, we need to learn to carry our own baggage, and to face our social problems squarely.

McCarthy: Since censorship on the internet is impossible, there is no alternative to freedom of speech.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#17. April 2nd, 2008, at 7:07 PM.

The mutt yaps:
“So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?”

Funny, I thought that was Lucy’s game plan…turnabout is fair play.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#18. April 2nd, 2008, at 7:10 PM.

Hey dawg…why are you directing traffic to a post that exposed Lucy to harm? Cummon you can tell us…you’re in on the con too arntcha?

Who did up that site so quickly for you …Grant Bristow web associates??

Rose
#19. April 2nd, 2008, at 8:47 PM.

Dawg wrote: So going after a man’s livelihood is now fair game?

Just Me on April 1, 2008 10:28 pm

Well it hasn’t stopped Warman from attacking his enemies, what about their lives and jobs? Yea just as I thought he’s untouchable by you leftards but those he deems his enemy can be persecuted for their words.

I hope someone at DND has alerted the Brass about Warmans past and history of “Entrapping” people then filing a HRC complaint and then receiving cash awards for pain and suffering. In my world that kind of behavior isn’t acceptable, he’s made a handsome tax free prophet, I believe, from persecuting his enemies. Nice racket he’s running at the HRC as their prime complainant, that fact alone should have him investigated for “Conduct unbecoming a Lawyer”.

Who’s next weeks’ enemy of Warman?

Dr.Dawg
#20. April 2nd, 2008, at 9:47 PM.

McVay is a very good person indeed, but we have disagreed on his absolutist views on the subject–you can probably track down our exchanges on Usenet.

Should this sort of thing be protected speech? It was something remarkably similar that led to our disagreement.

On CBC, as I recall (it was a decade or so ago), Ken defended the “right” of a website to publish the home address of an anti-nazi and a call for letter-bombs to be sent to her. He argued that the owner of the site (Bernard Klatt) should not be held responsible for postings on the site. I thought that was going a trifle far, and the two of us had a fairly unpleasant exchange. I admire the guy, but we’ll never agree on this sort of thing.

My own position on free speech has certainly shifted over the years, but I still believe that this freedom should not be absolute.

James Goneaux
#21. April 3rd, 2008, at 12:39 AM.

I’ll look it up. You can disagree with him all you want, but he obviously doesn’t come to his position from anywhere close to a “right wing” point of view, so I was just curious. And if anyone’s life would be in danger from nutzis, it would be him. (Compare to Kinsella’s alleged fear of frisbees for instance…)

Well, how about Deborah Lipstadt then:

http://thejagwire.blogspot.com/2008/02/deborah-lipstadt-and-free-speech.html

The woman who, for want of a better term, took down David Irving, has this to say:

“I do not believe that laws against denial are strategically wise. They tend to make martyrs of the accused, arousing sympathy for them. They also render the item which has been outlawed ‘forbidden fruit’. Thus it becomes more enticing and appealing to certain segments of society – disaffected youth, for example.

Most importantly, however, genocide denial laws suggest that we do not have the facts and the documentation to prove that these people are liars. We defeated David Irving in court not with law but with facts.”

As for publishing PUBLIC information, don’t be obtuse. Every time Warman launches a claim in court, his address becomes public knowledge. Everytime Kinsella makes a note on his blog about Daisy Consulting, he is begging for work. Not hard to find his work address. And if he is so afraid of retribution, why does he have such a high public profile? Why pose for a family picture at your house for an article in the Toronto Star?

Not really the actions of someone who fears the dark side (although it certainly does sell books)

And, no, that is NOT an example of protected speech. It is a threat, and the cops should be tracking down the perps. Not some kangaroo court with fuzzy powers.