Comments on: Settled Law?

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:35 +0000

On what basis do you think this is not in line with CPC / Harper instructions? I hate to have to be the one to tell you but he may have a greater agenda than listening to conservative bloggers. It entirely fits in agenda of a strict interpreter and discourse limiter.

By: truewest

truewest — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:20:08 +0000

Jay,
If the Harperites want to change the law, they can do so. As one of your posters correctly pointed out, there’s nothing in Taylor or elsewhere that says a provision like s. 13 is mandatory in human rights codes.
Sure, they’d take a political hit, but not nearly the hit they’d take if they threw their hat in with Lemire and his ilk, which would not only be bad politics, but legally unsound. When you’re the government, you don’t get to file a brief asking a tribunal to strike down a law that you could change on your own.

You’re getting closer on the analysis, although the notion that Tsesis is debunked because some other academic who has nicer credentials disagrees with him might be overstating the case. As is the argument that DoJ’s argument is that those who believe Taylor was wrongly decided are guilty of abuse of process. The argument is that it is an abuse of process for a small coterie of litigants — sock puppets for one another if you will - to run the same unsuccessful legal argument over and over again before the same body, all without bringing anythin new to the table. Making new challenges to old law is not an abuse of process; stamping your feet, repeating the same thing over and over again while plugging your ears and chanting “I’m not listening” is.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:43 +0000

Truewest is a shining example of the lack of decorum and manners that can be brought about by the lack of proper parenting. The sad part is that he is likely to pass on the same bad traits to his own offspring. But then again, selfishness and materialism is a hallmark of modern liberalism.

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:26:26 +0000

Scratch the above, thanks to BCF. That would be “an American Assistant Professor of Law”. My apologies for not recognizing his proper station.

I gather they really are tired of hearing from the same old people, ad nauseum. Is the desperation to find a new apologist for this degenerate law so bad, that they couldn’t find anybody but the usual suspects to advance their argument? Did they then have to reach so deeply into the slop bucket that they had to go alookin’ south of the border to find any kind of bone to toss us waiting dogs?

Surely, they could find some Associate Law Professor on this side of the border who would be able to write a sophistic paper in support of Canadian hate speech laws.

Truewest, I think you’ve missed your opportunity. Thar’s gold in them thar hills.

By: jay

jay — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:15:28 +0000

Having read the brief tw the legal argument seems to be:

1) we found an obscure and throughly debunked American who teaches at a law school who agrees with our position;

2) Pre-internet the SCC by a 1 vote majority said s. 13 is OK and so the law, for ever more, is settled.

3) People who repeatedly disagree with us on 2 are not with the program and are thus process abusers.

It really isn’t much of a legal argument tw.

However, crappy as it is as a legal argument it is even worse as a reflection of how badly the CPC have bungled taking charge of the Departments.

In the instant case highest and best would have been for the DOJ to switch sides; but, at a minimum, the Department should have been instructed to withdraw from the case.

By: truewest

truewest — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:21:02 +0000

Redux,
“Partisnaim”? I would have excused it as a typo, but the rest of your argument was equally incoherent. Had a few pops before you posted? Or do you babble like this sober?

In any case, my post didn’t turn on Tsesis’s theories or qualification (the words “all of which is beside the point” might have given a thinking person a clue), but on Jay’s continuing inability to accurately summarize the law and legal arguments generally.

Back to you, fickwut

By: WL Mackenzie Redux

WL Mackenzie Redux — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:34:53 +0000

I must say I had to giggle at Truewest’s vacant partisnaim in defending the indefensible. I doubt he’s read Tsesis’ ridiculous theorizing as it certainly is nothing to attach your credibility to.

Tsesis is just plain wrong because he omits 500 years of free speech cause and effect on the liberalization of European law and politics and focuses (quite disingenuously) on one 10 year period.

I believe the technique employed in making these vacant arguments is called negative historical revisionism.

Teseis omissive theory is at worst self evidently fraudulent, and at best specious unprovable presumption.

By: john begley

john begley — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:06:34 +0000

golly jan…i don’t thimk the DOJ has shown the least concern about ‘abuse of process”..
from what i’ve read they’re oblivious to it or unconcerned….

which is depressing disappointing indeed…

i’m sanguine tho..i know PMSH is no dummy…i know he’s hip to what’s going down…but perhaps NOW is not strategically or tactically the time to flatten the CHRCs….

we live in hope and die in despair..

By: Elmo

Elmo — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:03:52 +0000

More and more, the DOJ makes me believe that Lucien Bouchard was right, “Canada is not a real country.”

By: Blazingcatfur

Blazingcatfur — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:42:04 +0000

Tsesis thesis torn to pieces:

http://tinyurl.com/4e4dzj