Where is the libel?

I seriously don’t see any libel. There are true statements of fact - Warren is out checking washrooms for graffiti and making a very big deal out of what he finds, while Warman has, um, “interesting” investigatory methods. Then there are characterizations of these actions. That would be an opinion and is based on the acts of the plaintiffs.

Libel would be to falsely claim that the defendants had done something unsavoury. To falsely claim that Warren is out hunting bathrooms for graffiti would indeed be libel, as you would be impunging his character based on things that are not true. Unfortunately, Warren proudly attested to his actions.

If libel is to include unpleasant characterizations of true facts, then Warren should be especially concerned. His little Barney the Dinosaur antics would have landed him in financial purgatory. Actually, they still should based on his reading of the various Human Rights Codes, as he was transparently intending 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 a prohibited ground of discrimination” - namely that the target was an evangelical Christian.

When will the insanity end?

More info on “Nazi-like” behaviour from Mr. Warman - he wants certain books to be incinerated and anyone carrying them across the border to be jailed http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080409_48864_48864&page=1

Cools aside, Warman has actually engaged in racist sock-puppetry. He denies the specific comment, but otherwise is proud of his antics, as Warren is of his. There is no libel here.

Warren is not the most cool headed person in the world, and is rather quick to start thowing accusations around. He should be thankful that other people are not quite as quick to the writs as he is, such as his less than level headed assertions about the intentions of people throwing a school fundraiser at a nearby (though not close enough for his tastes) golf course. One wonders why Warren’s sensibilities aren’t outraged by the location of his office in Yorkvile - I guess the vanguard of the proletariat can only be asked to endure so much, and he is slumming it by living in the beaches, which has some homes under $1M and is a long commute from Yorkville, when he could quite rightly be living around Yonge St.

Er - one might argue that the Fourniers’ near Phelpsian credibility precludes their ability to prejudice anyone else’s reputation or impugn their credibility, but having read the post in question, that first line seems to clearly accuse both RW and WK of planting hate speech on the web. The last line, while not a clear accusation of forgery of the bathroom pics, could be seen as such without massaging the semantics much at all.

It was a monumentally stupid posting on those two points alone. The middle bit is just filler and I don’t know any reasonable person who would call it libel. Unfortunately, I know a whole lot of unreasonable people who conflate offensive speech with hate speech, and none of whom can tease out the difference between either of those and libel, which is what’s at issue here. Some of my acquaintance will casually libel someone while simultaneously demanding that the same person be jailed under hate speech laws for being a big old meanie.

I do think there is a libel case to be argued here, however, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants elicit much sympathy from me.

The post in question made no distinction between RW and WK when it mentioned planting hateful screeds, and unless you can come up with evidence that RW and WK admitted to planting hate speech or engaging in racist sock-puppetry, then there is an accusation that needs to be answered. As for the implication that WK faked the photos, a reasonable person might infer that from the posting. Emphasis on “might”. I think it’s a weak case, but the first statement really requires a defense.

So, rather than dismissing the complaint out of hand based on the source, why don’t some of the Fourniers’ defenders do the kind of yeoman work done by Buckets on tracking down the IP address that started this whole mess, hmm? I’ll gladly admit that there is no case when I see persuasive evidence that both WK and RW posted even one hateful little turd.

Again - I am asking for evidence, not rhethoric or insults. You know what evidence is, don’t you? A post, a link, an admission - something that substantiates the claim - made clearly in the first line of the post - that either of the plaintiffs engaged in the kind of hateful screeds they have been accused of posting.

So far, nothing.

As for obtuse, I am trying to evaluate the claim as a judge might, based on how a reasonable person might evaluate that post. Blogging virgins will not look at that post the way you or I might do. They may or may not know sweet bugger all about the ongoing RW saga, or even have heard of WK before. On it’s face, it looks like the Fourniers’ accuse RW and WK equally of the same behaviour. That’s the claim they made, and that’s the claim the Fourniers’ now have to defend.

Valiantmauz is correct. The post will be judged on its merits, not based upon what someone could know had they read or consulted all kinds of other sources. In libel, judges are concerned with “ordinary meaning.” This makes a lot of sense.

The opening paragraph says:

“From planting hateful screeds on the internet, to photographing bathrooms stalls at knee-height, there is no place where stawart Nazi hunters like Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella fear to tread.”

Further down in the piece, the bathroom photography gets attributed to Kinsella, but the “planting hateful screeds” is clearly attributed to both. Whatever the author intended is irrelevant. The standard used is objective, not subjective. It is the author’s job to be concise, not the reader’s job to be a mind reader.

Furthermore, the bathroom photography bit could still get attributed to Warman as he is never specifically excluded. In libel law, ambiguities tend to the plaintiff. And, as I said above, in its ordinary meaning, the innuendo seems to be that Kinsella is doing something improper in a bathroom with a camera.

Oh, I can quote the libelous material above, by the way, without being sued. Fair Comment defense clearly applies here.

That’s Bigcitylib, reading Free Dominion so the rest of us don’t have to.

I’m not worried about objections; I’m just amused by the image evoked. “If it pleases the court, my client Mr X is defamed by the incorrect attribution of the conduct of his esteemed peer and co-plaintiff, Mr Y”. And then the same, but with roles reversed.

I was not considering the “Cools” posting which I have not read; I was aware only of the earlier sock puppetry mentioned by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

What exactly is the implication that any photos were forged or staged? “The camera never lies” is a colloquialism which reminds us that pictures are nearly devoid of context. It is not an accusation of forgery.