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 www.ezralevant.com
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.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
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 ezralevant.com.
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 merlet@shaw.ca
Thanks
www.ezralevant.com 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.
This is priceless reading the below post on ezralevant.com.
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 merlet@shaw.ca
Thanks
www.ezralevant.com 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
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:
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2731
"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."
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2731
"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 www.ezralevant.com 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.
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.
btw GO FLAMES GAME 7
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?
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.
btw GO FLAMES GAME 7
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.
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.
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.
www.ezralevant.com
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.
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.
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: http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2008/01/ezra-levant-is-no-hero-even-if-you.html
Charles,
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
Charles,
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.
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 www.westernstandard.ca 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!!!!!!!
A mutating human-rights monster www.westernstandard.ca 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 www.ezralevant.com 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.
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
I will write more later and post a lovely pic. ttyl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
