Panic Stations
It looks like Richard Warman has been underbussed by the Department of Justice as well as the CHRC.
Fothergill helpfully listed six examples of the CHRC’s corruption for Hadjis to consider: 1. Richard Warman, the former CHRC employee who was the complainant against Lemire, had actually trained the CHRC investigator who went after Lemire—a clear conflict of interest. 2. The CHRC failed to provide proper disclosure to Lemire. 3. Warman initially blamed Lemire for the bigoted online post attacking Sen. Anne Cools—but quickly dropped that part of the complaint when Lemire asserted that Warman himself wrote it. 4. The CHRC’s recent cases have been prosecuted by one man—Warman—and that hardly fits the CHRC’s mandate for “remedial” justice. 5. The inconsistent application of the law; and 6. Warman himself didn’t even bother to attend most of the hearing that bore his name. ezra levant
What to do??
Long standing Warman ally, the Lying Jackal, has popped up with a clever solution: sue Ezra Levant. The Jackal is using the same “small claims” summary procedure as Warman to accuse Ezra of defaming him.
The defamatory words?
Farber’s newest recruit to the CJC, Warren Kinsella, has provided political and media advice to the CIC’s young bigots-in-training, the “sock puppets”. Farber just verbally supports Elmasry. Kinsella—on the CJC’s legal affairs committee—actually rolls up his sleeve and helps the anti-Semites out a bit.This is the Canadian Jewish Congress in 2008. How repulsive. ezra levant
I would be astonished if this piece of crap saw the inside of a Courtroom but it would be great fun to watch the Jackal attempt to deny the truth of that statement given that he bragged about lending the socks a hand on his website. (And remember, the actual complainant in the Steyn matter was Elmasry who famously stated that any Jew over 18 in Israel is a legitimate target for attack.)
Ezra is now fighting Warman, Vigna and the Lying Jackal both in Court and before the Law Society of Alberta where there are assorted complaints.
Realistically, this blizzard of doubtful legal paper has one object – to shut Ezra up. (As if.)
These people are running scared. They know that they no longer have any political support. They know that the new CPC government is going to have to throw a bone to the base and s. 13 is meaty enough but does not hurt the CPC. They know that, as a result of the stupidity of the Steyn affair and the persecution of Ezra for the ‘toons, Canada’s media has awakened to the real threat s. 13 poses. They know that Warman’s tactics have brought the CHRC into disrepute (as so effectively outlined by Fothergill).
Most of all the Warman/Jackal camp realizes that, for the first time, a smart, well connected group of
Canadians are willing to stand up for freedom of speech. Which scares the Hell out of them.
Ezra and Kate and Kathy and Free Dominion and the National Post don’t live in their mothers’ basements. While the Lying Jackal tries mightily to use the guilt by association smears, that stopped working when PEN and MSM signed on to protect Canadian’s right to speak freely from these self-appointed censors working through an out of control, procedureless, Commission.
Go drop a few dollars in Ezra’s defence account.
But as you do, remember this most recent bit of lawfare underlines the fact we are winning. The Jackal and Warman and their dwindling band of supporters are getting desperate. They are pushing the big red litigation panic button over and over. And nothing is happening. That panic button is disconnected. No body cares and nobody is frightened of them anymore.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Man, desperate people are kinda stupid. Just donated – go Ezra! Never surrender!
October 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The dumbies just don’t realize how their sily and spiteful actions have changed the blogosphere.
Who even reads “The Lying Jackel’s” website and to see any of “Lucy’s” latest analysis – one needs to go over to B’nai Brith. Bit odd.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Jay,
I see you’re still pretending that you know something about law, in particular defamation law.
Since you’re the expert, perhaps you can explain why suing Ezra amounts to “lawfare” but his nasty little suit against Merle Terlesky, who offered the opinion that Ezra was a lousy boss and businessman who like to poke Muslims, doesn’t merit comment from you or your equally ignorant pals.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Actually, tw, I have dealt with that issue privately.
But excellent hand waving for the Team there tw.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Jay you’ll have to hand out hip waders if you allow partisan onanism in here to wank all over actualities.
The freedom haters club have run their little tyranny and now are about to have their asses handed to them by the courts, parliament and the media. In the mean time they just stink the place up with their asinine wanking.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Nice non-answer. Keep on pimping for the free speech fraud.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
yes, voltair, but tw has to have some sort of hobby.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Jay,
Reading your amateur legal prognostication hardly counts as a hobby. Its like watching a man repeatedly trying to open a door without hitting himself in the head. You hope that just once, he’ll manage this simple task without screwing it up, but as wood meets forehead yet again, hope give way to a sort of existential stubborness. Now, redaing your sweaty-palmed, delusional thoughts on the gifts and talents of Sarah Palin—now that’s a hobby.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
TW: I have said that I think Ezra is an asshole for his treatment of Terlesky – but being an asshole does not deprive him of free speech rights, nor does that make his defence of his free speech rights a fraud. The just outcome would be that Ezra loses against Terlesky, and Kinsella loses against Ezra – which makes it sound sort of like a game of rock / paper / scissors, I guess
October 29th, 2008 at 12:52 am
So, tw, as you are willing to grace us with your legal insight, ya think the Jackal has a case? (And let us agree that the Terlesky case should never have been taken beyond the nasty letter stage?)
Think the late filing matters? Would you honour us with your professional views as to which parts of aiding anti-semites are a) untrue, b) actionable by this particular plaintiff?
Think this just might be a SLAPP suit tw??
Do tell.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:52 am
This may not help Ezra but may be useful for the other Canuck persecuted.
The link is from the blog of BCL:
>>>Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Legal Precedent: Your blogroll is safer from libel law
Good news: Your blogroll is now a lot safer to keep!
One of the defendants in the Crookes vs. Wikipedia lawsuit has been dismissed from the case. The defendant, p2pnet, was being sued for having a simple link to content Wayne Crookes claims is defamatory.
The judge ruled that a simple link is not sufficient to argue that publication took place, and thus there can be no defamation.
Wayne Crookes was a major financier to the Green Party of Canada in the period 2004-2007. He also held some appointed positions within that Party for some of that time. He was, to some, a controversial figure during a period of expansion and change within that Party.
Crookes sued a number of people, including me, for libel, claiming that a widespread smear campaign was being conducted against him.
A considerable portion of Crookes’ case against me was likely dealt a fatal blow when Yahoo successfully had Crookes’ case against them dismissed.
The p2pnet finding is very important to us all, as it establishes that a link does not necessarily have to be considered a publication of what lies on the other side of the link. The judge was careful to note that there are requirements which have to be met, such as the link being referenced in an editorially neutral way.
So your blogroll is safe. Linking for citation is fairly safe.
Caution: You can still be potentially successfully sued for linking if you recommended (directly or through innuendo) what lies on the other side of the link. If you are known, or are believed, to harbour malice towards the person, a simple link to defamatory content could also still get you in trouble.
Quick Canadian Libel backgrounder
Libel is the publishing or broadcasting of material (written, audio or visual) which could be seen to reduce the reputation of the subject in the mind of a reasonable person. Such defamatory content can be defended against using defences of truth, fair comment and/or privilege.
Libel law in Canada is not what most people expect. Unlike in the US, people sued for libel in Canada are guilty until proven innocent. Content which is normally protected by a defence can be found indefensible if the judge believes that it was published with malice. Fighting against a libel claim is very expensive, even if you have done nothing wrong. Though plaintiffs losing a lawsuit have to pay a defendant’s costs, the courts’ definition of what costs are generally equates to only half of a defendant’s costs being reimbursed, assuming the plaintiff can even pay.
So, be careful out there!
Posted by Mark Francis at 12:10 PM < <<
October 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Jay,
1. The limitation issue is a red herring. The six week limit applies only to newspapers published in Ontario and broadcast originating at a station in Ontario. Ezra’s website is a) not in Ontario and b) not a broadcast station in Ontario. In any case, the Ontario Court of Appeal has declined to recognise a website as a broadcast. Bahlieda v. Santa, (2003), 68 O.R. (3d) 115.
2. Is Levant’s posting defamatory of Kinsella? Well, does claiming that someone “rolls up his sleeves and helps the anti-Semites out” damage his reputation? Yes, probably .
3. Can Levant prove that it’s true? I doubt it. First, of course, he’s going to have to prove that Elmasry and the law students are anti-Semites. I know all you folks take that as an article of faith, because Elmasary’s suggested that Israelis over the age of 18 are fair targets, but I would suggest that it’s going to take more than that to persuade a court that doesn’t drink the same Kool-Aid as you. It’s going to be especially difficult given that Elmasary et al aren’t parties.
Can he pass it off as fair comment? Not likely. It reads like a statement of fact, not one of opinion.
4. Is this a SLAPP suit? Not unless you define SLAPP suit as any lawsuit in which Ezra’s a defendant. (Which Ezra apparently does.) Then again, Ezra doesn’t seem capable of arguing the free speech issue without personalizing it and, in the process, demonizing those who take a different view. In that context, any lawsuit that limits his ability to attack the reputation of his opponents must seem like like a SLAPP suit.
5. Is Kinsella going to win? Don’t know. If its like most defamation claims—if it’s like most civil litigation—it will never see the inside of a courtroom. I do note, however, that Ezra’s track record of defending defamation claims is hardly impressive. Those PayPal donations could well end up in Kinsella’s pockets (or at least the pockets of Kinsella’s lawyer).
October 29th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
tw, thank you for #1 – cleared that up
On #2 it will be interesting to see if this is taken as fact or opinion which may well be determined by #3 the fact that Elmasry did not say Israelis – he said Jews. (Which makes a certain perverse sense given the number of Israeli citizens who are Muslims.)
One might well ask if the fact that the complainant in a matter is an anti-Semite means that those who assist him are as well. However, insofar as the law students held themselves out as Elmasry’s agents (with the capacity to settle on his behalf) arguably they are tainted with their master’s tarnished reputation as an anti-Semite. And, of course, the Lying Jackal was hardly unaware of that taint when he bragged about helping them on his website.
As to #4, (and not that it matters in the Canadian context where there is no protection against SLAPP suits save the Rules of Procedure) I would suggest that there is a pretty substantial pattern of behaviour here as between the Vigna, Warman and Lying Jackal suits and complaints to the Law Society of Alberta.
#5 I agree. And, frankly, my own sense is that Warman, Vigna and the Lying Jackal should agree to drop the assorted suits and complaints forthwith. The litigation was absurd to begin with and as it progresses will expose them to increasing costs in the event that they are unable to make out their cases.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Jay,
1.Let’s try to keep the facts straight Elmasry said “Israelis” not “Jews”. Here is part of the transcript as posted by Robert Jago, hardly a cheerleader for the CIC:
MC: So any one over 18 in Israel is a valid target.
Elmasry: Anybody above 18 is a part of the Israeli army.
MC: So everyone in Israel, so anyone and everyone, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18, in Israel is a valid target?
Elmasry: Yes
2: The law students are tainted by Elmasry’s reputation because they are his agents? I’d say this was a novel idea, but Stockwell Day tried that one out a few years ago, when he suggested that a lawyer who defended a child pornographer supported child pornography. That little slip in logic cost Alberta taxpayers about a million bucks.
3. If there’s a pattern of behaviour, it’s Levant gleefully and unapologetically defaming people on his blog and elsewhere. To call a suit a SLAPP suit is to suggest it is without merit. That’s hardly the case here, where Levant not only libels people, but insists on repeating and expanding on the libels at every opportunity.
4. Costs only become an issue if you lose the lawsuit. Canadian defamation law favours plaintiffs, in that it presumes that defamatory statements are false. Levant’s opponents have to prove publication, identification and that the words were defamatory; the burden of proving the truth of the libels is up to the defendant. I don’t think Ezra’s up to the challenge.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:27 am
These people are frightened because they see in Ezra Levant the same thing I see when I look at Ezra Levant – genuine Canadian leadership.
As I’ve written on Levant’s site, I’m whiling away my time watching the CPC government inaction on this file. I voted CPC in the last election (again). That having been said, I am giving Harper’s second government 9 months to initiate something – anything – proactive to preserve Canada’s freedom of expression. If I see no action, I stop all my charitable and political contributions and redirect same to Ezra Levant, whom I believe would make the best Prime Minister Canada has ever had.
P.S. I am old enough to be Ezra’s father. I am also old enough to recognize dedication, commitment and LEADERSHIP when it’s staring me in the face. Similarly, I recognize Warren Kinsella and his ilk for the corrupt and whiny crybabies that they are.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:41 am
Elmasry not Anti-Semitic ??
REALITY CHECK:
http://www.forward.com/articles/2142/