Suing for Surrender

Sounder
#1. April 30th, 2008, at 1:01 AM.

This won’t be an olive branch. It will be all about submission or smearing Macleans and Steyn as “Islamophobes”, such accusation they couldn’t even leave out of the press release announcing their news conference.

Blazingcatfur
#2. April 30th, 2008, at 1:50 AM.

Lying Jackal :

“That’s not at all: I also came away convinced that they did not want to bring a human rights complaint – they were forced into doing so by Maclean’s obstinacy and its unwillingness to give them some equal time.

Ken Whyte et al. claim to be Canada’s national news magazine. They should prove it, by giving a bit of space to reflect the views of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians
they ridiculed and denigrated.”

Kinsella what a Jackass.

Sounder
#3. April 30th, 2008, at 2:28 AM.

Would a libtard ever, just once, study the facts behind articles written by Steyn and a thousand others? Just once? They are making themselves look so ignorant.

Jeremy
#4. April 30th, 2008, at 3:10 AM.

I wouldn’t hold your breath on a full surrender, Jay. They’ll cry “poor student vs The Man” and use vague blather about just wanting a “chance” for “rebuttal” - without calling attention to the specifics they originally wanted, (ie full editorial privilege on the cover, art work etc…)

Memo to self: next time NOW magazine doesn’t print my 27th consecutive letter to the editor, cry myself to sleep.

Rose
#5. April 30th, 2008, at 4:07 AM.

Quote: the Muslim-3 are planning on holding a news conference to make an offer to Macleans to settle the Human Rights complaint.

I hate to be a nit picker but they didn’t file a complaint against Macleans Mr. Elmasry did. Second how can Macleans negotiate a settlement agreement with these fools when their names aren’t on the HRC’s complaint? How can Macleans negotiate with them when they aren’t the complainant? Yet another example of the tactics used by Political Islamists, they muddy the water with non-facts, and they twist the truth to confuse the public and the left will eat it up. Alas look how accomadating these Muslims are, how many hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars have they wasted fighting Islamophobia when they haven’t even filed a complaint with the HRC?

Again how can Macleans negotiate with the non-complainants? Will the real Free Speech hater Mr. Elmasry show up? This is a public relations stunt, I hope Macleans tells them to piss off and come back to negotiate when they actually FILE A HRC COMPLAINT.

Jan
#6. April 30th, 2008, at 4:48 AM.

J. M. Barrie would be proud.

kelly
#8. April 30th, 2008, at 7:03 AM.

ewww, Jay please warn people when you are going to link to WK. What a complete asshat that man (I use the term loosely) is.

Hannibal Lectern
#9. April 30th, 2008, at 8:19 AM.

Make them sing the poem Lepanto as a form of punitive damages.

truewest
#10. April 30th, 2008, at 9:19 AM.

Jay,
You and Debbie should go a little easier on the pipe. When you emerge from the haze, you might realize that demanding your costs as the price of settlement in a regime where costs are almost never awarded, even in matters that go to hearing, will make you look - what’s the word? — oh yeah, silly.

Blazingcatfur
#11. April 30th, 2008, at 9:27 AM.

I just had to read the comments on Kinsella’s blog - out of 24 written 1 is by himself, 2 are by Big City Idiot and 1 by Cherniak, and 1 by the moron Maudlin. The rest are against him you think the Lying Jackal would take the hint. BIg City Idiot gets the award for the dumbest question “Do you think Macleans will bite?”

The Lying Jackal goes on to state that the Freedom 5 are employing poor legal strategy by mentioning that donations to the defense fund remain strong - he states that this will not allow them to claim they are impecunious bloggers unable to pay damages. The idiot does not seem to realize that none of the defendants has ever claimed they were impecunious. What a twit. I do not think he has any understanding of what it means to make a principled stand against tyranny.

truewest
#13. April 30th, 2008, at 9:42 AM.

Um, Jay, the complainants can simply withdraw the complaint. Cost: $0. Exposure to costs: $0

As for your theory that the CIC would be exposed because Elmasry brought a complaint, that’s even sillier than your suggestion that Macleans would demand costs. At law, Elmasry and the CIC are different people. Unless Macleans wants to cap an abuse of process lawsuit (which is a long-shot, given that this is a human rights complaint) with a vicarious liability argument, the notion that it would the CIC would have to pay Elmasry’s bills is as goofy as a suggestion that you would be on the hook for the Fraudulent Five’s damages when they lose the defamation suit.

Hannibal Lectern
#14. April 30th, 2008, at 10:31 AM.

I get kicked in the nards, punched in the teeth, ass whipped, spanked, curb stomped and my brains are leaking out my ears.

How ’bout we call it a draw?

dcardno
#15. April 30th, 2008, at 11:35 AM.

Frankly, I don’t understand the excitement. If CIC and the lawyers in short pants (LiSP) want this to go away, they simply withdraw their complaint - so Macleans is in no position to “demand” anything. A negotiator would say that their BATNA is simply to slink away and hope that the stench doesn’t follow them. The CIC and LiSP obviously want to get something out of this - and I just don’t see that Macleans has any interest on putting anything on the table; they would have to think that they faced a prospect of loss, and I suspect that they do not see that in the offing. As Jonathan Kay noted, this issue has probably increased their brand value, at least in certain sectors - any settlement whittles away what they have gained without restoring what (if anything) they have lost. I am sure the CIC and LiSP (well, at least the CIC) realize this - so the presser is an attempt to “look reasonable” while extorting something from Macleans - to which the obvious retort is “if you want to be reasonable, withdraw you complaint with no conditions.”

christopher rivers
#16. April 30th, 2008, at 8:53 PM.

You know it’s a solid victory when types like truewest answer with a testy rant about someone’s comment about costs. Although, I did enjoy the refresher course in outdated internet hip: “easy on the pipe” “um, Jay”. It was so - what’s that word? - oh yeah, stupid.

Peter
#17. April 30th, 2008, at 9:28 PM.

What is interesting and very encouraging about the pummelling Kinsella is taking is how it compares with the support he got when he was able to pitch the whole controversy as being about neo-Nazis. Lining up behind Lemire & co may have been ideologically righteous and consistent for the free-speech side, but the optics were awful because it is so easy to make it look like lining up behind not speech, but thuggery. Nobody ever said Kinsella was stupid and he knew exactly what he was doing and whose bidding he was really doing with all those washroom pics. But what I don’t get is how he and the likes of Barbara Hall and others in the HRC cottage industry have bought into the Islamicist drivel about Islamophobia so blindly. There is plenty of hard evidence all over the Internet and elsewhere about what their game is, and it ain’t freedom and tolerance. They are masters at playing the human rights gig to advantage and seem to have co-opted a lot of law schools, M.P.’s, etc. The students demands were palpably absurd on the face of it, yet a disturbing number of folks seem to be conceding good faith without even thinking about it and looking for a “reasonable middleground” between the honourable and the preposterous. Do our human rights champions need to be professionally deprogrammed?

Let’s let Lemire fend for himself and keep focussed on the real threat. It’s always a gas to re-fight World War 11, but our kids live in 2008.

Dr.Dawg
#18. May 1st, 2008, at 2:35 AM.

Jay:

Reading between the lines, the students have climbed down, and are willing to accept what I believe was on the table all along: the right to a response. No editorial control, no cover-art control, just–a response.

That’s reasonable. Everybody wins something. It’s–the Canadian way. I hope Maclean’s will accept what Whyte claims was offered at the time (and I have no reason to doubt him).

Dr.Dawg
#20. May 1st, 2008, at 8:12 AM.

“Never on the table? The editor-in-chief of Maclean’s disagrees with you:

The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request.

truewest
#21. May 1st, 2008, at 8:56 AM.

Mr. Rivers,
If I ever need instruction on style, I’ll give you call. Substance, however, doesn’t appear to be your strong suit. But then that’s not surprising, since you folks in the right-wing remedial reading class appear to be living in a fantasy world when it comes to this whole human rights kerfuffle and the related litigation.
Litigation and settlement are all part of the dispute resolution process; to describe this offer as “blackmail” or “victory” is simply fatuous nonsense.

sjt
#22. May 1st, 2008, at 8:12 PM.

Dawg: “They asked for an opportunity to respond…”we would consider a reasonable request.”

I’m not sure why I bother but…

Where in any of what you quoted do you see that Whyte said a “right to a response” was on the table? I see that the Sharia Creeps “asked” for an opportunity and Whyte said Macleans would “consider a reasonable request.”

No, they never had any “right to a response” and their imagined “right” was not on Macleans table.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around why anyone thinks they have the “right” to reply in a privately owned magazine or newspaper. I’ve written literally dozens of letters to the editor (mostly to my local paper). Many get printed, some do not. It’s their right to print them or not. It’s not my right to have my voice heard in their paper.

john begley
#23. May 1st, 2008, at 9:03 PM.

‘dispute resolution process ‘? ……. for a frivolous complaint…?

i think you’re operating under the ‘rules’ of the OLD paradigm….you obviously haven’t been paying attention……haven’t you been persuaded yet that THIS ‘process’ is a frivolous crock ?

no. i don’t suppose you have…and in that ignorance you will continue ’til you quit your misguided collectivist ways.

Dr.Dawg
#24. May 2nd, 2008, at 3:14 AM.

I agree that “the right to a response” was badly stated on my part. As noted, there is no “right to a response,” whatever that may mean. What was “on the table” was an offer to consider a reasonable request. I think that’s what the students are falling back on.

john begley
#25. May 2nd, 2008, at 4:53 AM.

yes hangdawg yes..and yet they’ve got more ink than any grievance group in memory…so the back of my hand to a reasonable request…so what IS their grievance?

well, you idiotarian..they’re being so illogical and stubborn (hoping the typical rollover and lick yer nuts canadian thing happens that it’s obvious THAT”S their hope and desire..)that eventually a panel of freaks and commies and and sexual whatevers will validate their OWN freakishness by endorsing THEIR sense of victimhood…

hangdawg ?…these people hate you and hold your belief system in contempt….and you can’t see that ?

you really are the thickest plank i’ve yet met from the soi disant llliberal blogosphere.

do you know ANYTHING at all of human nature ?

Just Me
#26. May 2nd, 2008, at 4:58 AM.

Dawg,

They already had their offer considered, and thoroughly rejected. As was the RIGHT of the publisher.

Case closed.

Blazingcatfur
#27. May 2nd, 2008, at 10:17 AM.

Dawg, Truewest this Post editorial is speaking to you both:

“Only a handful of left-wing radicals — including Jack Layton, whose letter of support was read out by Mr. Joseph at yesterday’s press conference — are defending the CIC-Maclean’s fight as a natural, acceptable event in a mature democratic civilization. It can only be a matter of time before they get together and form some George Galloway-style group called Leftists Against Press Freedom (they can call themselves the LAPF-Dogs). “

el Ricardo the smooth
#28. May 2nd, 2008, at 10:46 PM.

The organized labour business model is to win contracts for the exclusive supply of people and create a guaranteed revenue stream. It requires some assumptions - first, that without their intervention, there would be exploitation and unfairness, second, once won, contracts can only be renewed and never terminated, unless the host organization dies, third, there is little or no connection between union demands and the host organization’s economic viability, and fourth, any challenge to the business model is a de facto assault on human rights. Does working in a context of iron resolve based on dream-like reasoning create minds that forge conclusions before gathering evidence?

john begley
#29. May 3rd, 2008, at 8:12 AM.

us union paying guys(45 years) know the worth of union remora fish like the hangdawg.

the hangdawg is the moral equivalent of a LLLieberal politician…he’ll say or do anything and espouse any cause no matter how disgusting illogical or offensive to common sense simply to keep himself in office..

and don’t dare gainsay me..i truly know whereof i speak….they are amoral whores and contemptible specimens of humanity that basically….rather than lead simply follow the mood of their electorate in order to keep office…some of course are ‘big idea” robert conquest types that are quite marxistly mad….by the sounds hangdawg makes i’d at a guess reckon him a 50/50 opportunist/ dialectician.
basically these types aren’t too bright ….they only think they are cause they find they can manipulate the ’schmoos who pay the dues’ so easily……and the livin’ is easy of course.

basically they’re assholes….as anyone who’s heard the hangdawg’s perplexingly windy explifications on whatever topic he’s splitting hairs and offering you change for a farthing about.

just imagine that gasbag banning ME for making him look bad…and then calling me a burbling drunk !!!