In Canadian law, a tort occurs in a province if the damage occurs in that province, so the place of publication is irrelevant if the material can be read in the province. Your lawsuit had nothing to do with the place of publication.

The problem which both you and I overlooked, and which motivated me to dig this thread up, is that the Human Rights Acts do not restrict themselves to what you publish, but forbid you to CAUSE to be published the various things they object to. This prevents you from getting any advantage from publishing abroad. You cause a blog entry to be published when you transmit it to the publisher, wherever he may be, and you do that transmitting from your home in Canada.

My apologies if anyone was misled by my earlier observations, which were accurate as far as they went, but didn’t go far enough.

Incorrect. In Canadian law, the publishing of Internet content occurs at the client computer, not at the server.

This blog on an American server

http://greencompostheap.blogspot.com/

got suspended due to a lawsuit launched in BC.

Can you imagine a cartoon of Mohammed not only been shown on the CBC but being plastered with slop? And if they did – the uproar – Maybe we should demand equal opportunity for him.

Anyway, I have been waiting for some ex-patriot American to file a complaint – but then if there is one thing you can say about the Yanks, they are not prone to whining.

Another tactic might be to launch a complaint against the CIC and the law students, saying that their whining is “likely” to cause people to dislike Muslims. I am certain that their speech in this regard is stirring up a lot more ill-will than Mark Steyn and Macleans.

Finally, with regard to the word “likely” in the legislation. In a real court this might be interpreted in some real statistical sense – except it would be applied to an event that had already occurred, not in the future. I did a search on the OJ trial and discovered that the chance that DNA experts testified that the blood was “likely” his to the tune of a 1 in 50 billion chance that it wasn’t his!! That was not good enough for the jury, who came to believe as I recall that the sample was planted by the police.

If that doesn’t work, maybe you can hit someone on the comedy channel for telling a Newfie joke (Those never fail to offend me!)

Good Luck!

To up the ante, the graphic needs to show the guy smoking a high tar cigarette in the presence of kids not buckled into their car seats. With the windows closed. And soldiers. In our streets. In our cities. In Canada.

And an itty bitty purple dinosaur in the screaming in the back seat.

I don’t think you get your good guy merit badge until you can prove you’ve mastered hijacking unsecured wireless access points. So please refrain from claiming “good guy” status until you can produce the accompanying badge as certification of your rank.

... um …

...I do have a fax machine, single-sided, no less. And now my fingers are itchy.

:-p~~~