Friday, March 23, 2007

Things could get ugly

National Newswatch reports that several Liberal MP's including Gerard Kennedy are serving notice of libel against the National Post, Jonathan Kay and "John Doe".

Can a journalist be forced to reveal his source?


* * * *

More at Canadian Blue Lemons.

Jack's Newswatch
- The Handwriting is on the Wall.

And an older link to the Navdeep Bains story, which is all intertwined (TDH).


Also, in the March 26 issue of Western Standard, there is a very interesting article titled "Stephane Dion's Turnaround on Terror", by Kevin Steel. He refers to Jonathan Kay's National Post op-ed "citing unnamed sources who claimed deals that played out at the Liberal convention were cut months in advance, and included support from Sikh, Tamil and Muslim organizations, in exchange for a promise to water down the ATA". The Liberals of course, denied all this.

But this is compelling:

"In a email to the Western Standard, Kay writes that he stands by his unnamed source, who he claims is a person very high up in the Liberal party." (pg.26)

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good.

Zac

Roy Eappen said...

Bet the source will be a big wig in the Grits. I have little doubt that this is all true and the truth is an absolute defense to libel.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if they realize that in a civil suit full disclosure requires them to cough up all the details?

I suspect they do, which is why this will be dropped before it gets there.

If I were the National post's lawyers, I'd see this for what it is: an abuse of the courts processes for political purposes.

I'd fast track, and counter-claim.

Then they wouldn't be able to drop it when it didn't suit their political needs. It may also yeild some interesting fruit, not to mention a tidy settlement.

That's what I'd do....you know....if I was an experienced trial counsel..........

Anonymous said...

Complete hogwash. Everyone knows that the Liberals are in the back pockets of every minority group in this country despite their terrorist past and future intentions. Let the case come and we'll finally get to the truth about the Liberal party and their terrorist supporters.

paulsstuff said...

"Can a journalist be forced to reveal his source?"


The Toronto Star better hope the answer is no.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The Toronto Star better hope the answer is no.

What do you mean, the Star?

BTW, I'm wondering about Kim Bolan now.

paulsstuff said...

The Star is famous for slagging Harper with the popular unnamed sources or sources who did not want to be identified.

Actually, not just with Harper, but many of their stories.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The Star is famous for slagging Harper with the popular unnamed sources or sources who did not want to be identified.

Ah, yes. The famous 'unnamed sources' articles.

Maybe all MSM should just put a blanket moratorium on all unnamed sourced reports.

Or would that infringe upon freedom of the press, in which case, why are they going after the Post?

paulsstuff said...

SDA had a post awhile back showing a great example of the Star ripping Harper with phony info from unnamed sources, but the Star link is now invalid.

As for the jist of your post I agree. most of this is a smokescreen hoping the Post backs down. But I think that Kennedy knows there is some truth in this and it might blow up in his face.

I agree with Roy that source will end up being a big wig in the Grit party, also hoping to hasten Dion's departure from politics.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, that's certainly the kind of move that will help the LPC reconnect with the average Canadian, eh. Just remember, the nation's business is still all about what Liberals think, feel and desire. Man...do these guys ever need to be out of power for a full mandate. Let's get to it and let Harper win a majority and maybe the Liberals will get their act together so as to be a viable government in waiting in the next 6-10 years. As it stands, they're just sad!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't a bigwig, but, was a LPOC organizer.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Anon...bold statement there...you're going to give Joanne a heart attack if you keep dropping bombs like that. Joanne...? are you ok?
anon#31

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a SLAPP attack :

SLAPP
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. One marker of a SLAPP suit is whether the costs outweigh the claimed damages by a large amount, for instance, damages of a few hundred dollars and costs in the tens of thousands. Lawyers are thought to be particularly conflicted in SLAPP suits, since a marginal case can lead to high legal charges, and they are encouraged to run up costs by their clients.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I'd say the Post has a few bucks (the Aspers). I'd also say that they're going to hire the best in the business.

The Libs will regret this one. It looks bad on its face, and when it gets down to the dirty nitty gritty, it'll look even worse.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it nice of Bains to wear a red turban for Red Friday Support the Troops??? ;-)

The Liberals are indignant all over the place, demanding apologies here, there and everywhere. Now, I get it!!! That's their platform!Ah...yeah, that will work. People will vote for them out of "sympathy."

Well, if it's pity they want, I'll help. Poor, pitiful Liberals....makes me want to cry...sniff, sniff. They've never said anything bad about anybody and "it's not fair!!"....that they get picked on all the time by those mean-spirited people.

raz :-)

Alberta Girl said...

"It's just not fair" "You don't know what you speak about" - after all, only the Liberals have the right to make libelous claims!(hmm - just noticed how those two words Liberal and Libelous are kind of close - coincidence???)

liberal supporter said...

Funny how calling something unfair is now a bad thing, a code word used as a pejorative to ridicule. So unfair is actually good?

Then we have climate change science that is called a religion.

Then we have social science that is called engineering.

Which libelous claims, made by the Liberals, and published in a major daily, are you referring to?

Anonymous said...

It's the same reason the Liberals were laughing at him (in his debate with Iggy) when he said it then.

Why were they laughing at him? Why did Iggy look flabbergasted?

You tell us.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wasn't it nice of Bains to wear a red turban for Red Friday Support the Troops??? ;-)

Ha! There's a good one.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Congratulations are in order for J. Kay!

This is excellent news because it gives legs to a story the CBC, CTV and the Globe & Liberal would have preferred go away.

Kay has done a great public service, few journalists ever do that these days.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Comment at 09:10 pm deleted due to language, although I agree with the sentiment 100%!

Anon at 09:11 - How interesting. Actually I was wondering myself if the Post might just be plotting how to use this to their best advantage.

If they start discussing this in their paper, it could make for some very interesting reading.

jgriffin said...

Well,

At least the Post has something to write about.

Brian in Calgary said...

Actually, I'd say the Post has a few bucks (the Aspers).

Aren't the Aspers Liberals? If not, they sure used to be. One of them (Izzy, I think) was even the Liberal leader in Manitoba some time back.

At least the Post has something to write about.

You mean something besides this?

biff said...

High up in the Liberal Party,

It's looking more and more like this will be liberals suing liberals.

You thought the knives were out before?

Anonymous said...

"Funny how calling something unfair is now a bad thing, a code word used as a pejorative to ridicule. So unfair is actually good?"

Ya, kind of like the Liberal's trying to use climate change "denier" whenever referring to Harper.

liberal supporter said...

"Funny how calling something unfair is now a bad thing, a code word used as a pejorative to ridicule. So unfair is actually good?"

Ya, kind of like the Liberal's trying to use climate change "denier" whenever referring to Harper


No, it's not "kind of like" or like in any way. My statement is that you are essentially saying that unfairness is ok. You are saying that declaring something as unfair is bad. On the other hand,
Harper has in fact denied climate change. Once I learned that the phrase "denier" is seen as being linked to Holocaust denial, I stopped using it. I thought it would be unfair to use a word that invokes the Holocaust deniers, when no such inference is intended.

In the Harper case it is a quibble over using a word with negative connotations. In the Dion case it is your view that unfairness is to be accepted.

But since you appear to be defining "unfair" as ok, should I resume being unfair, stop calling Steve a climate change sceptic and revert to "denier"?

To answer my own question, no I won't revert. It is a matter of fairness, even though you think unfairness is ok. But I won't give you a new talking point based on "denier".

Gayle said...

"I have little doubt that this is all true and the truth is an absolute defense to libel."

I hate to break it to you, I really do, but.... the liberal party actually has some pretty good lawyers, and I really doubt they would have recommended legal action if they were not pretty sure of a victory. (No civil lawyer forgets the Oscar Wilde story).

The story was dead and buried before this. I highly doubt there can be any reason for initiating this action unless they were pretty sure of a victory.

Watch for a retraction any time soon. I am sure we will see one.

Anonymous said...

TANGO JULIETTE sez:

My dear Lib Support.


"It's just not fair" "You don't know what you speak about"

When Steffi's famous outburst, quoted above, catapulted Steff into the Canadian lexicon of bufoonish twaddle talk, it was not for the reasons you seem to infer.

No one I know of is making sounds that imply "unfair" to be a good and positive thing, something to be held up as an example of behaviour to be emulated.

What IS repeatedly being held up for ridicule, is what first flashed across the few screens tuned to the great debate, in language unknown. (could this have been something of the heavenly aspect of Canadian progressive Liberalism? Yea though they speaks in the tongues of angels and of men, none shall comprehend them? Perhaps not.)

That first flash of vulnerability was the result of two PhD's whacking at one another, in an almost-real world, though one outside the hallowed and ivied halls of academia.

Now, we all know, from our own University days, that PhDs (Piled Higher and Deeper,) especially those of tenured post, are looked upon as being some persona akin to God -- at least, that's the profs' perceptions of themselves. And they certainly are not at all accustomed to being questioned, let alone becoming the targets of pejorative put-downs, directed at them by some Anglo/Allo HahVahd PhD, especially.

Hence, Steffi's petulant little foot-stamping and finger-pointing response: "It's just not fair" "You don't know what you speak about" and that classic, favourite chestnut, "Do you know 'ow 'ard it is to make prior'teeeze?"

All this, in response to: "We didn't get IT done, Stefane, we didn't get it done."

And they were debating the Kyoto Accord, something that, according to recent libranoid revelations, was entered into lightly, eyes wide shut.

They signed on, with no plan nor direction in mind. Well, No plan, other than to apparently give the Party of Adscam another crisis (this one global,) which only the Liberals could ameliorate(cue the LPC 'Big Bucks in Large Brown Envelopes Brigade of Brigands'.) Their solution was that, eventually, through the distribution of vast lashings of Canadian tax Dollars, with the Liberals and their brown-envelope back-room henchmen acting as our ever-vigilant protectors and intermediaries, all could soon appear to be well and healthy again. The Libs, simultaneously and mysteriously getting well-fed and wealthy, to boot.

It's the childish, PhD-driven petulance and intellectual arrogance that is being mocked, buck-o, nopthing else.

As for that classic bit of Liberal gobbledeygook, the choice of the defamatory and belittling word, Denier?

Consider two things: If everyone is a denier then no-one is a denier.

And what constitutes denial? Is denial a case of: not signing an agreement and working towards a solution? This MIGHT be seen as some potenial degree of 'de jure' denial. Or not. Depends on the fruits of the labour.

Or is denial a case of: Signing an international agreement yet doing nothing with it, but SCREWING UP and driving the whole target 36-fleeping-% DOWN THE CRAPPER ?!?!?!??!!

Ther can be NO DENIAL on this point. THIS Liberal, Stefane Dion failure to live up to any part of an international accord is the most shameful act to tarnish Canada's reputation on the world's stage. Though mind, giving credit where credit is due, you guys did a great job of haning this turd's necklace on poor Rona A, eh?

Rest assured, however: the voters of Canada refuse to be screwed over by you folks any longer. You, dear Lib Support, may, as an ideaologically-blinded minion of your party, personally choose to continue your defence of the indefensible. That's your right.

But know this: Canada will no longer tolerate the intolerable and intolerant Liberals, and Canada most certainly shall not elect the dishonest Liberal unelectables.

luv 'n' laffs,

tj

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aren't the Aspers Liberals? If not, they sure used to be. One of them (Izzy, I think) was even the Liberal leader in Manitoba some time back.

Brian, it's hard to know where they stand these days. Wikipedia has this about David and this about Gayle.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hence, Steffi's petulant little foot-stamping and finger-pointing response: "It's just not fair" "You don't know what you speak about" and that classic, favourite chestnut, "Do you know 'ow 'ard it is to make prior'teeeze?"

Wow, Tango. You nailed it! I'm going to hire you as my Dionglish translator.

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

Cher J (T Blue):

T'anques, enh?

H'it's h'easy when you live wit' da peuoples, once't times, you knowz?

tj

I'm waiting for Lib Support to come back on that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tango, you've started your own blog, haven't you? Feel free to do some self-promotion here. ;)

Anonymous said...

TYangoJuliette sez:


Good memory, Joanne ti-Bleue:

I think that you're the only one who knew about it.

Yes.

started.

Burned out a couple of computers.

Ceased and desisted.

But someday . . .soon. . .

Brian in Calgary said...

LS - Thank you for not using the word denier, and for sticking to your decision. A while ago, I stopped using the phrase "Kyoto cultist" in favour of "Kyotologist," but I realize that, too, could be offensive, even though offense is not meant, so I shall now use the more dull, but still accurate phrase, "Kyoto enthusiast," or perhaps just "Kyoto supporter."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tango, don't give up.