Interesting court action begins
TORONTO • Richard Warman, Canada’s top online hate-hunter and scourge of free speech advocates, offered his first public response on Monday to the online campaign against him led by conservative blogger and lawyer Ezra Levant.
In court filings for a libel suit, Mr. Warman calls Mr. Levant’s conduct toward him “obsessive,” states he “has no respect for authority,” and says it is “surprising” he is a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.
“Mr. Levant is in the habit of fabricating extremely serious allegations of misconduct against others,” Mr. Warman states in an affidavit filed in Ontario Superior Court.
“He describes various human rights tribunals across Canada as ‘kangaroo courts.’ He vilifies their members, he accuses their lawyers of lying to them (without any evidence) and he mocks those who would dare to disagree with him.”
In a brief hearing on Monday, Mr. Levant’s lawyer Peter Jacobsen said Mr. Warman has made “irrelevant and scandalous accusations,” and that he will file a full written response in two weeks. Mr. Levant declined to comment on them on Monday.
[More]
Popularity: 7% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
rob misek Says:
While I have supported Ezra’s fight for free speech in the past, I have also noticed his censorship of pertinent posts on his website that criticize the Jewish occupation of Palestine.
I suspect he only supports free speech as long as it serves his special interests.
Still, not everyone who supports free speech is as hypocritical and the truth will expose all lies.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 8:24 am
John Luft Says:
“He describes various human rights tribunals across Canada as ‘kangaroo courts.’”
If the shoe fits.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Joe Says:
Well Rob just because Ezra believes in free speech doesn’t mean that he has to offer opposing opinions on his blog. Free Speech is the ability to express your opinion on your own dime.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 10:28 am
ward Says:
Rob: sit back and ask yourself why he should, and if he doesn’t why that is somehow against free speech. Is he stopping you from starting your own blog or voicing your opinion?
Richard Warman and the HRC’s are doing just that.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
stageleft Says:
@ward: That’s easy, like every other blogger the man created a platform to air his views and see what people had to say about them – the fact that he chooses to censor those he may not agree with speaks volumes about his commitment to his supposed cause.
If he doesn’t want people to disagree with him on his site he should be honest about it and disable comments completely and call it an editorial page.
That aside, they do make a wonderful pair of hypocritical, media pandering, circus clowns don’t they?
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
jema54 Says:
Stageleft and Rick misek – In my house and yard I do not allow any dogs to defecate , however, some dog owners do allow this behavior, on their own property and elsewhere. I am not a dog hater because I do not care where dogs do their dirty business as long as they don’t dump on my property.
Ezra owns his blog.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
stageleft Says:
Let me help you out with that jema54.
In your yard you do not have to allow dogs to defecate, it is your right to make that decision because it’s your yard, and because of that you get make the decisions about what does or does not happen there.
If however you have a big sign on the side of your house that says dogs should be allowed to defecate where ever and when ever the need arises, and you go on radio and TV shows, and you pen newspaper editorials and columns, advocating for the right of all dogs everywhere to defecate where ever and when ever the need arises, but in practice you only allow some dogs whose owners you like to defecate in your yard that is still your right (it is after all your yard) but it makes you a hypocrite doesn’t it?
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Joe Says:
Well stageleft I certainly wouldn’t want to live in the tyranny you call freedom. Freedom of speech does not mean that you must give voice to every opposing clown who wants to spew. It means any clown can spew any nonsense he wants without repercussions from the state. Under your vision the Liberals would have to pay for the Conservatives ads.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
rob misek Says:
Stageleft nailed it but there is one more thing.
An internet blog is a public meetingplace. Free speech in public means all opinions are valid and only criminal behaviour should be restricted.
If viewing was restricted to paying members only then it might be considered a private club where free speech could take the backseat to the political correctness of the club mandate.
Ezras’ blog is public and his censorship while not illegal yet is very hypocritical.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Cynapse Says:
It must be begrudgingly admitted that Rob is right. Ezra can do whatever he wants with his blog; however, censoring out opinions not favourable to his pet cause smacks of “do as I say, not as I do”. Remember, we’re talking about content, not harassment or rudeness (which is moderated on most forums).
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
stageleft Says:
@Cynapse: Absolutely, it’s his yard and he can do what he wants in it – when he censors comments he’s being hypocritical but if he doesn’t mind being labeled as such that’s his business.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
zee Says:
“Jewish occupation of Palestine”
Did you intenionally discard the fraud of only being “ant-zionist” or was that a Freudian slip?
Maybe Ezra thinks there are plenty of other sites to peddle your kind of crap.
Posted on February 10th, 2010 at 7:44 am
rob misek Says:
This illustrates how criminalizing lying would support free speech on the internet and everywhere.
Then lying posts would be censored appropriately. This would effectively shut up most of the idiots.
Fortunately, criticizing the Jewish occupation of Palestine would still be a valid application of free speech.
Posted on February 10th, 2010 at 8:15 am