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.

Am I to understand that Kinsella and Warman are mutually insulted by being sloppily co-accused of each other’s efforts to fight hate in Canada,

They were co-accused, sloppily or just plain stupidly. It’s up to the accuser to correct the error. Since the accusers apparently elected to stand by their sloppiness or stupidity, I’m underwhelmed by this objection.

and so have elected to file jointly to clear Kinsella’s name of Warman’s reputation and vice versa?

That’s a supposition based on what, exactly? Is there a pubic statement or evidence to back up this interpretation? From the currently available information, I don’t see that either WK or RW need to clear their names. Under the existing libel laws, it appears that the accusers have to prove either or both allegations.

Or is it not factual that Warman ever planted a screed

That hasn’t been proven and the initial allegations regarding the Cools posting have been seriously undermined by the investigation done by Buckets on the Rogers proxy arrangements at the time of that posting, at least to my mind. If there are other allegations or admissions, I have not seen them.

and that Kinsella ever took the alleged photographs?

That WK took the photos is not disputed. What is at issue is the implication that he may have forged them. I’ve already stated that I think this is a very weak charge, and that if there is anything to the libel action, it’s in the very first line of the post, accusing both RW and WK of planting hateful screeds on the Internet.

All I want is the slightest smidgen of evidence that that charge is true. If there isn’t any, then I fear the Fourniers are in for a rough ride.

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.

I am bemused that after being explicitly referred to as “Nazi hunters” the plaintiffs have elected to imagine themselves accused of being “Nazis”. Not very many reasonable and intelligent people would conflate the two. The phrase “Nazi-like” covers a lot of behaviours from wearing brown shirts to trying to enforce one’s social beliefs on others, but doesn’t imply loyalty to the swastika.

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.

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.

Warren was photographing graffiti in a washroom – though whether it was knee height hasn’t been proven. Perhaps Warren’s height is being libeled, or graffiti is only important if it’s at least 3 feet above the floor but he’s being maligned for worrying about graffiti about 2 feet above the floor.

As to “camera never lies” – implication isn’t libel and there are so many ways to read it, especially concerning whether or not someone running around the bathrooms of the nation scratching swastikas is actually a Nazi.

There is no basis for complaint, but there should be punishingly large fines against Warman and Warren for vexatious filing.

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.

This is a reference to a swastika WK photographed in a washroom stall at a kids hockey game (if I remember the details correctly). FreeD is accusing him of faking the drawing the swastika himself.

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.

The rest just seems silly and obviously pejorative, but a judge would likely see libel there.

Warman and Kinsella are described as “Nazi-like”. Judges go after that one. The Nazis advocated violence against a oppressed, identifiable group. Ouch.

Another inflammatory sentence is the last one, which has Kinsella doing knee-height photography in bathroom stalls without explaining why.

Even when there are facts out there supporting a statement, if they are not immediately clear to a reasonable person, the statement will be interpreted by a judge on it’s own merits. I frankly had no idea what that last sentence was about, and thought it had Kinsella taking pictures of people while they were using the washroom.

And, of course, there’s the malice angle, which kills off a fair comment defense.

The overall innuendo seems quite defamatory as well.

Still, if not for the reference to the Cools post, I’d call this an infantile political rant.