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, September 10, 2008
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.
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!!!
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 Permalink Comments (10)
postCountTB('265');
Trackback
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,
By Ezra Levant on May 13, 2008 5:33 PM Permalink Comments (10)
postCountTB('265');
Trackback
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.
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 Permalink
postCount('247');
Comments (3)
postCountTB('247');
Trackback
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".
By Ezra Levant on May 4, 2008 11:06 PM Permalink
postCount('247');
Comments (3)
postCountTB('247');
Trackback
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
