Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Dr Dawg

So Big City Liberals likes to make a big deal about the so-con ideals of CPC canidates. Well here is some news for ya. The current leader of the Alberta NDP Brian Mason was a former member of the Cdn Communist party as was Anne Mcgrath the current national prez of the federal NDP.
During Jack Layton's run for Mayor in TO he had several communist activists on his campaign, like David Kidd and Brian Eng.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Ezra is way off base really

"How would we know if the Alberta HRC went on strike?
By Ezra Levant on May 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (12) | Trackback

On February 13, 2006, the Western Standard magazine, of which I was the publisher, printed eight of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to illustrate a news story on the subject.

On February 15, 2006, an anti-Semitic imam named Syed Soharwardy filed a "human rights" complaint against the magazine and me, with the government of Alberta's human rights commission. You can see that semi-literate, hand-scrawled fatwa here."

Ok above is the latest rant of Ezra and I have to admit its a bit much. I dont agree with Syed going to the HRC, but he had the legal right I suppose to do so and yes its a pain in the arse, but he is not a criminal in doing so. Not a criminal for his actions anymore than Ezra is for keeping me in a civil litigation since Januaray 2008 THAT'S OVER 120 days folks and its not over.

Syed is no anti-semite as I have personally met the man and Syed also has Hannukah at his Mosque- wow I guess thats what Jew haters do eh? is invite Jews to their meeting place.
So since I have some sympathy for Syed does that too make me a jihadist? Even though I have a Israel flag in my house with pride and was damn near killed in the 1st rally in Calgary back in 2004 by a group of real jihadists for my pro-Israel stance.
Ezra is bothered that this HRC thing is taking so long- awww poor baby I feel for ya Ez. I am in a crappy defamation suit and mine is not over hyet either and why? Because the plaintiff i.e YOU wont let go.

So suck it up Ezra and base your baseless accusations on some facts ok. Ya remember those important things called FACTS-not just hype.

Burma and the mess

Burma's state-controlled media did not broadcast news about a possible second cyclone. However, some residents of Rangoon learned the news from foreign broadcasts and the Internet.
In Pictures: UNICEF at work
"I prayed to the Lord Buddha, 'please save us from another cyclone. Not just me but all of Burma,'" said Min Min.
The rickshaw driver had his home destroyed by Cyclone Nargis. He lives with his wife and three children under plastic sheets.

umm sorry, but that is your 1st problem praying to Buddha, as he is dead. Pray to the Lord Jesus Christ who is alive!!!

Wow Ezra

The National Post: Warman lawsuit "entirely unfounded"
By Ezra Levant on May 13, 2008 5:33 PM Comments (10)

As regular readers of this blog will know, I have been sued by Canada's most litigious human rights complainant, Richard Warman. Warman has sued me and some of Canada's other leading bloggers -- Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion -- for criticizing his conduct as Canada's chief user of Canada's section 13 thought crimes provision. In particular, we've been sued for discussing his habit of going online under a pseudonym, and posting bigoted remarks -- strange conduct for a human rights investigator indeed.
Here's a copy of Warman's suit, and my comments on it at the time.
Besides suing me and my fellow bloggers, Warman sued the National Post and its comment editor, Jonathan Kay. Kay had written a short blog item about one of Warman's online rants in which Warman called Sen. Anne Cools some outrageously racist and sexist epithets. Warman claimed he didn't write that particular screed -- though he's lied under oath about similar misdeeds before. Kay and the Post took Warman's denial at face value, and immediately pulled the blog entry. In addition, they published an apology both online and in the newspaper's print edition -- though the article only appeared on their blog.
In other words, the Post and Kay did just about everything possible to mitigate any damages alleged by Warman -- they even contacted other bloggers who had copied their original blog entry, and asked them to take it down. I've never heard of anyone going that far before.
Warman sued them nonetheless.
I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now. What did he think he'd get from them? Another apology? He's already got two. Or did he think that, because the Post settled so quickly once before, they'd settle again quickly, but this time with money? It just doesn't make sense to sue one of the biggest media companies in the country over such a trifle -- especially since they made Warman whole so quickly. Warman's speciality has been suing poor defendants without lawyers, or getting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do so for him. It's just not his modus operandi to take on someone his own size -- or 1,000 times bigger.
Well, now the National Post and Jonathan Kay have filed their Statement of Defence. You can see it here. (The other defendants, including me, will be filing our defences shortly.)
The Post/Kay defence naturally is different than mine and the other defendants' will be. The Post and Kay are not standing by the substance of their blog post -- they already conceded that without a fight. Now they're fighting Warman on his decision to sue them nonetheless.
Their defence claims that Warman's reputation hasn't suffered at all, and if it did, their apologies have made up for that -- apologies that the Post notes were approved by Warman's lawyer. The Post takes on Warman in his essence: a hyper-litigious, thin-skinned complainer-of-fortune. Look at paragraph 22 of their defence:
the damages or loss claimed are excessive, exaggerated, remote, unrecognized at law, unmitigated by the Plaintiff, and unconnected with any alleged act or omission on its part, and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof thereof.
In other words, the Post is calling Warman's bluff. Normally, damages are presumed, but not when an Ontario newspaper makes an apology immediately, as the Post did. Warman will now have to demonstrate, specifically, how he was damaged by the Post, and how he's owed big bucks for it. And, if he doesn't, the Post demands "costs on a solicitor-client basis" -- in other words, every single cent of their legal bills back.
It's an elegant defence -- short and sweet. I'm pleased. Sometimes big companies find it easier and simpler to just cut a four- or five-figure cheque to get rid of a nuisance suit like this. But it's clear Warman pushed them too far; he already negotiated for two apologies and got them. The Post can sense that paying more danegeld to Warman doesn't make sense.
They're done apologizing. They didn't want a fight; they did everything reasonable to avoid one, even swallowing their pride and accepting Warman's incredible denials at face value. But now that Warman's suing, they're fighting back.
Warman added the Post to his suit because he thought they'd be a soft touch with deep pockets. But now they're coming at him for full costs. I think they'll get it, too,

Monday, May 12, 2008

Ezra a Libertarian?

Ezra talks a real talk when it comes to Libertarian values etc. Reading his website you would think that he is one himself? He certainly pandered to them during the days of the WS.
Yet through all those years and even now he still upholds defamation law and uses it when he see's fit.
How people can not see the glaring hypcocrisy of all that I dont know? if you cant, well then you are simply hero worshiping and not paying attention to facts folks.
If you were you would see how wrong it is and call him on it.

sad but true.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Anti-Semite and free speech??

Jews for free speech
By Ezra Levant on May 4, 2008 11:06 PM
Comments (3)


ADDENDUM: It's not just that Jews are opposed to section 13. It's that anti-Semites are in favour of it -- and are using it as a weapon against us. Look at the character of the men who have recently been filing complaints under section 13 and its provincial analogs. Mohamed Elmasry, the terrorist-supporting president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, filed three complaints against Judeophile Mark Steyn; Syed Soharwardy, the infidel-hating president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a complaint against me (and, though he later dropped it, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities picked it up); and even Richard Warman, Canada's most prolific section 13 complainant, has admitted under oath that he went online, under a secret codename, and posted comments on white supremacist websites, signing off with Nazi shorthand for "heil Hitler".

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Have we learned any lessons?

For 10 long years I was led to believe the USSR was the ticket to real democracy and that democracy would come via the satellite communist parties of the west. Yes I was a socialist. When I traveled to Russia in 1990 I was hard pressed to find a young Russian that supported the Communist party. Today we know that those ideas are as dead as Lenin’s corpse in Red Square. Yet the fight for democracy is not over, not by a long shot. We all remember the morning of 9/11 as we watched terrorists fly planes into the twin towers and killing thousands of innocent people. Yet somehow we are led to believe that on 9/12 the world was with the USA the morning after. Well tell that to the people who were dancing in the streets of Gaza or the numerous regimes across the earth that celebrated.
We face an enemy today that lives by a code that if you walk into a crowded market with a suicide vest and blow everyone up you are a martyr. MLK was a martyr as was Robert Kennedy; these so called martyrs though are cold blooded killers. Somehow the lasting democracies must put an end to that evil and it won’t happen by giving up. Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama are racing towards a quick withdrawal from Iraq and they think that will solve the problem. True Iraq is a mess we all know that and some major tactical mistakes were made, but retreat and capitulation is not the way and it is indeed the wrong message to send to the enemy. To endure and fight to the end is truly our only way out. If that can happen by talking along with fighting then so be it. We have the choice to live in a society that allows our woman to wear as much or as little clothing as they choose and for general free choice to thrive. Or we can adopt a style of life that enslaves people Taliban style and shoots a woman in the back of the head in a crowded stadium while thousands watch. I don’t like everything that free capitalism brings like poverty and homelessness, but it sure beats the life that the people of N. Korea endure. We live in a country where people like Ezra Levant and his Muslim opponents can debate cartoons without having to behead someone. Where journalists can write freely and not be shot and or poisoned like those in Moscow who are critical of the Kremlin. That to me is worth fighting for, here and abroad. Bring the troops home is a cloaked slogan for “surrender”. It’s all wrapped up in peace and tolerance but these same people have marched in the streets of Calgary with Hezbollah flags chanting “death to Jews” and did so in front of a war memorial in memory of our war dead. I still support the right for people to yell insane slogans, and my right to disagree peacefully. What is that right to worth to you?

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Ezra barks up the wrong tree

Commenter "Kriilin" points me to this website, that has a YouTube clip of me on last week's CTV pundit's panel. I like partisans, and Don Boudria is as loyal a Liberal as they come, but every once in a while there is a news item that just can't be jammed into a "blame the other party" message. The strange case of Brenda Martin is clearly one of them.
Here's the clip."

You can see it at

While he raises a good point about scoring political points at the behest of a Canadian in a Mexican jail-Ezra has essentially done the same thing.
While a local Calgary Muslim woman anguished in misery after crashing her school bus and in the end causing the death of a young girl-what does Ezra do??? He writes a column in the SUN berating the woman for wearing a hijab. Oh no no political point scoring there no not at all.
Search in google "Ezra Levant fired from Calgary SUN" to find the article.

I smell fish.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Ezra Levant sues and is being sued.

Now if there is anyone out there who is not aware of the fact that Ezra Levant is suing both FFWD publication and myself for defamation well look back ay my posts. Yes he is suing us for $100,000
This is priceless reading the below post on
I will have my pay-pal running on my site soon as I too need legal help to defend myself. As Ezra says its costs about $30,000 to defend oneself and so far I am into a lawyer for $5,300.
Yes that's right bloggers and freedom publishers, all that for a letter. I need your help please, for now email me at

Thanks below:

"Vigna’s threatened lawsuit is so obviously frivolous and vexatious, it’s laughable. I hope it goes no further. But, unfortunately, if he really does proceed with a suit, I won’t just be able to laugh – I’ll have to run a defence, and that costs money. And even if I beat Vigna in court – in a year or two – I’ll still have to shell out money for lawyers along the way. I really don’t see how even a quick trial would cost less than $30,000. And remember, that’s on top of Richard Warman’s lawsuit against me and my fellow bloggers, and that’s on top of the human rights commission complaint against me, which still continues.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Vigna has piled on. Other bloggers have written about Vigna’s tomfoolery but, as far as I can tell, I’m the only one he’s threatening to sue. And I don’t doubt there will be more suits on top of those.

There’s a term for this: SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. It’s Richard Warman’s specialty, and now Vigna’s getting in on the game. And, I’ll be candid: if it weren’t for the support of the blogosphere, I’d probably crumble under the pressure of it.

But so far, so great: I’ve been able to fight these bullies. As I’ve said before, I’m up for the fight, and I believe in it. I actually think I’m suited for it. The only thing I’m missing is financial strength.

I hate to ask again, so soon after asking for help to fend off Warman’s suit, but if you want to chip in to help me fight off Vigna, please do. Even a bare-bones defence is going to cost me tens of thousands of dollars – and I’ll have to come out to Ontario for the trial, too.

I didn’t ask for this suit. But it’s clear to me that the human rights industry can’t win through arguments, so they’re going to try to bludgeon me (and others) into submission.

Well, I’m not rattled – I’m still serene. I’m going to fight them as long as it takes. Please help me if you can.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra "Tranquility" Levant

end of quote.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Canada's Libel laws

COMMENTARY: Canada should reform its antiquated libel laws

By Dan Burnett

October 27 2006

Dan Burnett
Click here to see full sized version.

Why do plaintiffs outside Canada bring libel suits against non-Canadian defendants such as the New York Post and the Washington Post in our courts? The answer is that they likely have good legal advisers who correctly tell them that Canadian libel laws favour plaintiffs. For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.

Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism. Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel we would recognize today had been established. In Law of Defamation in Canada, Professor Brown notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as “artificial and archaic” and characterized by “absurdities”, “irrationality”, and “minute and barren distinctions” (p. 1-3).

While social values and legal concepts have evolved dramatically of the past 200 years, the common law of libel in Canada remains startlingly unchanged.

The Americans inherited the same common law of libel from England that Canada did, but American courts concluded that the law had to be reformed to protect free speech. In cases involving matters of public interest, the plaintiffs now bear the onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage, and statements of opinion are immune from liability. (See Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.)

For those who prefer British and Commonwealth role models, it is noteworthy that in the past dozen years or so, the highest courts in England, Australia and New Zealand have all recognized that the traditional law of libel fails to adequately protect free speech, and they have all issued decisions which begin to right the balance. Every one, that is, except Canada.

The trend began in Australia, with the landmark cases of Theophanous v. The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 Aust. L.R. 1 (H.C.) and Lange v. Australian Broadcasting (1997) 145 A.L.R. 96 (H.C.A.). In Theophanous, the court declared that under traditional common law “the balance is tilted too far against free communication.” (p. 20). The cases established a new privilege for political discussion. The privilege developed in those cases has made its way into a new 2006 uniform Defamation Act in Australia. Among other things, the new Act refreshingly declares that one of its objects is to ensure free speech is not unduly hindered.

The English House of Lords took up the challenge in Reynolds v. Times Newspaper, [2001] 2 A.C. 127 where the Law Lords chose to recognize a new test for a case-by-case privilege for publications which, though otherwise actionable, dealt with a matter of public concern in a manner which was reasonable and balanced in all the circumstances. Even as this article was being written, the House of Lords released its decision in Jameel v. Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44 emphasizing that the new defence is to be applied flexibly to protect and encourage important journalism (see Randy Pepper and Lawren Murray’s article on page 14).

In New Zealand, defamation law has been modernized by a series of statutory reforms to their Defamation Act, and by the landmark decision of Lange v. Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385, establishing a qualified privilege for non-reckless statements about political figures.

However, in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] S.C.J. No. 64, Justice Peter Cory, for the Supreme Court of Canada, stated, “I simply cannot see that the law of defamation is unduly restrictive or inhibiting”. Against the common law and statutory reforms which have occurred elsewhere, that sentiment seems out of step. Given that many of the Commonwealth developments occurred after Hill, it is interesting to ponder whether the Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion today.

Why should we care if Canada has more restrictive libel laws than elsewhere? One reason is that libel law, by attaching punitive consequences to expression, plainly infringes the Charter guarantee of free expression, and it becomes difficult to justify under s. 1 when other “free and democratic societies” have concluded that the traditional common law requires reform. A more pragmatic reason is that Internet publication by media outlets opens the door wide to forum shopping, raising concerns that Canada will become a haven for libel plaintiffs who likely would not succeed in their more natural forum.

Mostly, we should be concerned about the state of our libel laws because freedom of speech – including the pain it sometimes causes – is the means by which we discuss, debate and grow as a society. The clash of ideas is at the heart of our adversarial justice system and our democracy. As the poet John Milton put it, “...there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.” Areopagitica (1644).

Dan Burnett of Owen Bird Law Corporation in Vancouver practises primarily media and defamation

Paul McKeever

Wow is all I can from this post by Paul McKeever: to see the whole post go to:

 "Ezra says censorship is wrong for this reason: we have (he submits) a long history of laws that disallow it. In other words: our laws (allegedly) against censorship are just because they are old. Yet the argument that "old law is just law" implies that we should still have laws that facilitate slavery in Canada, that give only propertied men the vote, and that make it illegal to open your store on Sunday.

Ezra condemns the addition of speech to the original list of things regulated by human rights commissions. He thereby implies that he has no objection to human rights laws concerning employment and housing. Our human rights laws typically cannot prevent someone from denying a person a job or an apartment so long as the reason for the denial is not known to be one prohibited by human rights legislation. Thus, in effect, Ezra's position is this: nobody should prevent Ezra from saying that another man's religious beliefs are dangerous but, if Ezra utters such an opinion, he should lose the freedom to deny that man a job or an apartment. In short: shut up, or put up. That is clearly a self-defeating defence of "free speech."

Steyn and HRC's

Below is a excerpt from Mark Steyn in his support for Ezra Levant. See I wonder though if Mark knows that Ezra is not only being sued but he is suing too!!!!
Suing local publication FFWD and me for $100,000

IT'S WARMAN WEDNESDAY!Until midnight Eastern tonight, for every copy of America Alone sold at the Steyn store, we'll give 50 per cent of the cover price - ie, our entire profit - to the legal defense funds for the five beleaguered bloggers fighting for free speech in Canada. That's 50 per cent of the cover price of the paperback, hardback, audio book (in CD, tape or MP3 format) and our America Alone Anniversary Special. And we'll also put 50 per cent of every other book, T-shirt, mug or anything else we sell today to the Freedom Five. Whatever you buy between now and midnight, half the cost of the item goes to the battle to restore freedom of speech to a land that sorely needs it. And don't forget every book can be personally autographed to you or your loved one. Click here for more details on our Warman Wednesday fundraiser, click here for more details on the man for whom the day is named, and click here to hear Kate McMillan and Kathy Shaidle discussing their legal battle on the Shire Network News.
~ and thanks to our Aussie, British and European readers for getting Warman Wednesday off to such a great start.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Thoughts on Ezra Levants law suit.

This a word for word re-post of Ezra's comments on his own website. Now dont get me wrong and think that I support Warman. I dont. However it raises some serious questions as to Ezra's defamation suit against me and FFWD. One needs to ask who the readership is of FFWD and if Ezra's rep was brought down in any way by my letter on behalf of those said readers.
I wont answer that here-thats up to a trial judge. If you do enough digging though I am sure you can answer the Q yourself w/o a problem.


Speaking of big, corporate defendants, where is Maclean’s magazine and Mark Steyn on the list of defendants? I would never wish a Warmansuit on Maclean’s or Steyn, of course. But next to the Post, nobody’s been tougher on Warman and his bigoted, anonymous online comments then them. Could it be – perhaps? – that Warman doesn’t want to sue Maclean’s, which is owned by Rogers – which just happens to be the ISP through which the Cools comments were posted? Is Warman afraid that they will prove what he doesn't want them to prove -- that it was he who posted those bigoted remarks? I don’t know, but I’m curious. And I think a judge will be curious as to why comments in Maclean’s magazine, with its 2.8 million readers, weren’t regarded as actionable, whereas a few bloggers were. In a lawsuit that already reeks of politics, not serious legal matters, it’s just one more reason for judges to raise an eyebrow.
That’s because what any defamation suit is about is how much the plaintiff’s reputation has been reduced, and whether that reduction was fair. Warman and the CHRC have taken a shellacking in the press for three months, based on the true facts of Warman’s hyper-litigiousness, his confessed anonymous bigotry and other malfeasance. Warman has let the vast majority of these publications go (though he has tried to pick on a McGill university student). Just what is his reputation worth these days, what with all the revelations? What is he implying by ignoring Maclean’s pounding of him, month after month? And, regardless of what Maclean’s says or does, when a self-described human rights hero admits to posting anti-gay, neo-Nazi bigotry, as Warman does, what’s left of that reputation to defend?

Friday, April 18, 2008

wrong wrong wrong

Dr. Dawg said"But now--what about using libel laws to shut down speech you of which you disapprove? Let's talk about the other half of the problem, namely nuisance suits by the well-heeled that no ordinary citizen can afford to defend? Like, say, this one".Freedom of expression does not allow for damaging someone's reputation based on false statements - that's libel. Your link to the action by Mr. Levant has nothing to do with freedom of expression or freedom of speech or differences of opinion. Statements of fact have been made. Ezra may have a case if he can show these statements to be false. Unlike the HRC, this is a real court with centuries of established precedent. It's sad when people don't know the difference.DUCATIS2R 04.17.08 - 8:14 pm

Ducat, Yes we all know what alleged libel is and it is you Sir that missed the point. One can easily abuse the court system and use it to ones advantge and thus stiffle free speech. Even if the foundation of the system is centuries old.This suit would be a slapp suit in the USA and you know it.
You dont own your own reputation the public domain does.

Dr. Dawg

I want to thank Dr. Dawg for linking to my blog. Its interesting that I get more support from the left in my fight than from the right.
The right seems to say HRC bad, but defamation law good. Ya sure until someone sues your ass for $100,000 for writing a letter or a post in a blog.
Good luck with that folks and thanks to my supporters.
I frankly find it grossly hypocritical for bloggers and free speech advocates to ignore my plight.
Ezra can whine with his cheese "poor me I am picked on" but then sue people for alleged defamation.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Ezra gets a new friend? maybe not.
Turning enemies into friends
By Ezra Levant on April 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments | Trackback

Winston Churchill said that the definition of a fanatic was someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the topic. I must therefore change my view of John Baglow, also known as "Dr. Dawg". This week, he wrote what can only be called a concession speech for the defenders of Canada's human rights commissions. Here are some of my favourite excerpts:

Welll readers I am not going to post all the excerpts, but to say that Ezra has missed the point that 'Dr. Dawg" also opposes people using the court of defamation as a means to stiffle free speech.
I wonder if the fact that I support Ezra's fight against the HRC's makes me even a 25% friend? Probably not as he is still suing me for writing a simple letter.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Former Western Standard writer nails the issue.

Why defend free speech?
With freedom of speech and expression under attack, it's a good time to be reminded of why this freedom is so important, and why property rights are the only proper exception to a regime of liberty.
Pierre Lemieux - March 31, 2008
We learned this week that the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission has been using a false on-line identity to monitor incorrect opinions and enforce the Canadian "Human Rights" Act. This law prohibits the communication of "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of... race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted." There are similar provisions against hate speech in the Criminal Code.
That these laws were often used against alleged neo-Nazis does not matter, for free speech must be defended up to, and including, the expression of despicable opinions. Lately, as was to be expected, the "human rights" commissions (there are provincial ones, too) have been going after other targets.

Talking about Nazis, it is worth noting that the real ones were also great fans of speech bans. Section 23 of the 1920 program of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for a "legal fight against conscious political lies" (underlines in original). A Nazi government decree of March 21, 1933, aimed to punish "[a]nybody who intentionally creates or publishes a false or seriously misleading piece of information that could gravely undermine the... Reich." Statists have a way to be similar across time and place.
The first argument for unhampered speech is that there is no other way to discover the truth. In his famous monograph On Liberty (1854), John Stuart Mill wrote, about those who want to restrict free speech:
"[T]hey acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."
Moreover, free speech and free debates convey information about the truth to those who have not discovered it by themselves. No one has the time and resources to inquire into every issue, and we often economize information by adopting those theories and conclusions that have withstood the test of free debates. In the future, when denying the Holocaust will have been forbidden for decades, what basis will people have to believe that it ever happened?
The continuous search for truth is important not only from a philosophical viewpoint, but also in scientific and economic matters. The poverty and military inferiority of Islamic and other totalitarian countries has much to do with their general repression of speech.
Even the most extreme forms of free speech have benefits. As the Bible (Exodus 32) reminds us, one’s god is just a golden calf for another. Blasphemy is a form of religious criticism. Western religions have become softer and less dangerous partly because of the Enlightenment’s attacks.
Hate--a natural and ineradicable human sentiment--is of no use in a rational inquiry, but can contribute to the defence of worthy ideals. So can contempt, which is the aristocratic version of hate. I would argue that the state scoundrels who are taking away our liberties rightly deserve our contempt. And it is legal to heap such scorn on them, for they have not yet added "state participation" in the definition of their favoured "identifiable groups" in the "Human Rights" Act.
The state itself frequently demonstrates hate and contempt in the form of laws targeting the hated lifestyles of unpopular groups--like, for example, smokers, gun owners, redneck types, iconoclastic critics.

Even libel laws are dangerous to free speech and the search for truth. Not only do they encourage the gullible to give credence to any defamatory statement whose author is not sued, but they can easily be used to stifle debate. During the decades preceding his suicide in 1991, wealthy businessman Robert Maxwell used libel suits to fend off journalistic investigations of his business dealings and his frauds.
The acceptable limits on free speech are of a private nature: one is free to say what one wants but not in somebody else’s living room or newspaper, except with the owner’s permission.
Another justification of free speech is that its negation requires censorship by political power, and there is no reason to believe that dictators, politicians and bureaucrats are more enlightened than what results from the free clash of opinions. Historically, the state has proven much more dangerous than free speech. In general, opinions only kill when they are espoused by the state.
Mankind has not changed much. At the dawn of the third millennium, we still face natural scares under recycled environmental superstitions, real or apprehended epidemics, wars of religion, censorship, and other old liberticidal fads. The threat of tyranny is still very real. And we should by now understand the slippery slope of state interference with speech.
Discuss this column online
Pierre Lemieux is a professor, an economist, and author of numerous books and articles, and editor of Liberty in Canada, an online pro-liberty news source sponsored by the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Could not say it better if I tried~

Comments section from:


Levant was NOT FORCED against his will to show up anywhere. He chose to go in person. He could have answered with a registered letter (under $10) or to say nothing at all. Therefore he voluntarily chose to present himself to the investigator, because doing so suited his own agenda (as noted by 3 days of run-up ranting and the presence of the camera).

Also, this was not a tribunal, but a single person investigating the merit of the claim. There is a difference.

Don't get me wrong here, he should even have to do THAT. This claim against him is spurious and should have been dismissed out of hand before it got this far. It should be dismissed now. I still believe that, as I stated in the first line of this post, that we should not have HRCs or hate speech laws, and instead use our existing common law to remediate speech which provably caused harm.

But lets not clutch our pearls and scream about jackboots and star chambers here, because that is not the case. It shows yet another reason why we should not have these kinds of tribunals, but it is no where near the seriousness it is being made out, except in Ezras fertile imagination.

I would like to point out that a far worse threat to free speech is the reverse onus of our libel laws resulting in SLAPP lawsuits, which, ironically, is exactly what Ezra is doing himself right now. That's right, Ezra is suing someone for writing a letter to the editor that offended him, in an effort to quash his speech.

So, given that, among other things, you'll pardon me if I don't fall for his grandstanding and jump on his bandwagon.

1:59 PM

Thursday, April 10, 2008

free speech costs money.

I feel for the great people at dustmybroom and small dead animals as they fight for the right to free speech. Ezra Levant has often talked about the right to free speech and a recent comment on the shotgun blog was a response to that. I have posted those comments here for you to judge.
Today I received a bill for ( hold your breath) $5,300.00 in legal fees to defend the defamation litigation Ezra Levant has launched against me. So there you have it writers and bloggers. $5000 to for the right to write a letter.
To much you say? I agree and I need your help please. email me at merlet at shaw dot ca.

Thank you.

do as I say not as I do.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008
A mutating human-rights monster shotgun blog

Meantime, April 9 is shaping up as a real red-letter day in the human-wrongs industry, as Ezra Levant has revealed he and other are being sued by Richard Warman.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 9, 2008 at 03:16 PMPermalink Comments (16) TrackBack (0)

I love the post by Jeremy today-very well said:

Mr. O'Neill,
How can Warman suing Levant and others for defamation be a human "wrong"?
According to Mr. Levant, the whole problem with Warman heretofore has been his use of kangaroo instead of "real" courts.
Mr. Levant would be a more sympathetic martyr were it not for the fact he sues promiscuously in the very court he now finds himself called to for freely expressing HIS opinions -- something he is not too crazy about others doing. Ezra Levant believes in ME speech.
Mr. Levant has been bang on in his battles with the HRCs. However, to complain that this serial litigator is now a victim of a human wrong because he is being sued via the very defamation law he lauds is ludicrous.
Please think before signing off your posts with what amount to hero-worshipping throw away remarks.
Posted by: Jeremy 9-Apr-08 9:16:01 PM

btw GO FLAMES!!!!!!!

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

sue and being sued.

I read today on that Ezra Levant is being sued by Richard Warman. I find that truly unfortunate . Yet I wonder how many readers are aware of another law suit? This is one is not against Ezra Levant or Richard Warman, no in fact it was launched a few months back by none other than Ezra Levant, and I am a defendant in that action-along with the local Calgary news and entertainment weekly publication FFWD.
I am the defendant for writing a letter critical of Ezra Levant and for that I face a $100,000 defamation lawsuit. While I could use qualified privilege here and post the entire statement of claim, filed by Ezra Levant, I choose not to in the interest of fairness.
I ask you the public to be the judge here. Here are a few choice quotes from Ezra- food for thought.

"Warman’s not just suing me" "Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet."

..."But good luck with those kind of shenanigans in a real court, with a real judge who’s wondering why his time is being wasted adjudicating a political dispute with no legal merit dressed up as a defamation action".

"I’ve got a few more things to say about the Statement of Claim, but for strategic reasons and for legal reasons, I’m going to save them for my Statement of Defence".

"If you would have asked me late last year what I was going to do with myself after shutting down the Western Standard, I might have had a few guesses. But I never thought I would be fighting off a human rights complaint from radical jihadis in Alberta, and a defamation action from a radical censor in Ontario -- and trying to get our politicians to listen. But I’m up for the fight -- I just need help paying the lawyers"."

end of quotes.

The fact is I have costs too in order to defend my right to free speech in print. I could use any financial support thrown my way- PLEASE!

email me merlet at shaw dot ca

bye for now-dinner is ready and almost time for the Flames game.

1st day of my new blog

Hello all my name is Merle and this is my blog- I hope you like it.
I will write more later and post a lovely pic. ttyl