QOTW

I must give Tim Naumetz credit. His reply to Steyn was courteous, dignified, and restrained, despite the strip that Steyn tore off of him previously.

Should frame Steyn's response to Jason R Cherniak, Barrister and Solicitor, and post it in Osgoode Hall.

While I like Steyn a lot, I sometimes find him to be "lacking in seriousness".
But his response to Cherniak (who I also used to read) was classic. He certainly rips Cherniak a"new one".

WOW!!

A munchkin with a new bung-hole. Let's hope Jason in standing in a court today because he won't be comfortable sitting down in an office.

WOW!!!

I can't remember a smackdown as good as that since my Dad took me out back of the woodshed when I was 9. As a fellow Barrister & Solicitor, I wonder what young Mr. Cherniak did during his Constitutional Law courses? He obviously wasn't paying attention. Either that or as Mark suggests, in our new-fangled Trudeaupia, they don't teach anything that happened prior to 1982.

JASON CHERNIAK!!! Now there's a useless blast from the past if I ever did see one!!!

Seems that the world would be approximately 100% freer and civilisied if there were no lawyers.

It is they, that take it upon themselves in isolation to dikat law, simply because they are lawyers.

The making of law sould be taken out of the competence of lawyers altogether.

One can see why they think every one else is stupid and just not up to thinking. There would be no cash rewards.

The first postion should be that the government, lawyers and buerocrats have no say in the say of people.

End of story.

Also, it is good that there are those like Steyn, sharp use of language, that have wide audience, to slap these characters about from time to time and point out their learned stupidity.

Free speech has long been a part of English Common Law.
Statutory law, based on Trudeau's 1982 Charter, has been enacted to put limits on Common Law(such as free speech), not to guarantee or strengthen it.

I studied a bit of English Common Law and it had a profound effect on the way I approach discusions. If we could get back to using it and losing the Charter it would be very easy to separate right from wrong when making judgement calls. I also studied accounting and that seemed to reinforce the same belief system that I work from. You have rules that took centuries to create. You can't just go breaking them to fit your present wants.

Although I am not a lawyer or an accountant the discipline I obtained from learning these things applies to everything else I do.

Cherniak's just mad that his candidate and long time Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert lost by over 4,000 votes in Richmond Hill.

He may also be mad that his party, philosophy, and everything he believes in has been so thoroughly rejected by the Canadian public.

I'm watching the Stampede (in HD!) on CBC.

My particular ethnic group (British&German&Spanish&French) is not represented.

Should I file a complaint to some government agency somewhere?

That was an amazing response to Cherniak's drivel!

WOW, this needs to be framed.

Let's remember this when the the next commenter earnestly bemoans the "lack of property rights" in the Charter. In fact, I seem to remember a commenter here once making the claim that China's property rights regime was superior to Canada's, presumably because China had something written down on it. And also that the PLO/Fatah actually "recognized Israel" 'cos Arafat put it in a letter once before heading to Palestine to create his marxist/islamist terror state.

Oh, and let's also remember that Steyn has no university "education" and yet he often rivals Lord Acton himself.

And to the commenter above who mentioned Steyn's alleged unseriousness, please remember that comedy is a very serious business. And also remember that seriousness doesn't necessarily equate with earnestness. That Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter are extremely serious people, notwithstanding their lack of earnestness.

Finally, WOW, how many people have enough understanding to distinguish between LAW and legistation (laws).

Yeah, read that evisceration today. It went down gloriously with a fresh cup of joe.

Oz @ 1240 nails it.

I thought Diefenbaker codified something more formal in 1960 with the Bill of Rights?

Why is a lawyer ignorant of that while a lowly engineer knows it?

Oz said "Statutory law, based on Trudeau's 1982 Charter, has been enacted to put limits on Common Law(such as free speech), not to guarantee or strengthen it."

It was also used to get around the Civil Rights Laws this country had. You can't have multiculturalism and Civil Rights at the same time.

Me No Dhimmi:

"Let's remember this when the the next commenter earnestly bemoans the "lack of property rights" in the Charter."

One of the many unfortunate side effects of the Constitution Act1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was that those rights which were not listed (ie. Property Rights) were now accorded only second-class status. So while there may have been property rights under our Common Law, judges have now interpreted the fact that there was no mention of property rights in our Constitution or Charter, to mean that those rights have now been restricted and/or extinguished. So the issue of property rights is a very real and growing concern in Trudeaupia. Mark Steyn's point about the diminishment of free speech since 1982 applies to property rights even moreso.

I wouldn't want to be Jason Cherniak today. Or any day for that matter.

Also well worth a read is the letter from Paul Higgins about Vancouver's "Princess Thief", Camille Cacnio. The arrogance & lack of responsibility exhibited in her non-apology "apology" is indicative of a wide swath of "progressives" these days. They're stuck on stupid and stuck on rampant ignorance but yet are absolutely convinced they should be running the world ... and your lives. :-(

"It is they, that take it upon themselves in isolation to dikat law, simply because they are lawyers."

I'm not sure how to respond to this, lev, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Lawyers don't "dikat" law any more than you do, they work with it. I'm still trying to figure why cherniak thinks the way he does, but I've been wondering that for years, and I seriously doubt his legal training had anything to do with it. Matter of fact, at times like this I'm sure of it.
For the record, cherniak's ignorance of our legal heritage is not emblematic of my view as a lawyer or most of the other lawyers I've worked with.
One of my favorite things about studying law was learning a tremendous amount of common law and how it underpins and informs our legal system, not to mention our society as a whole.
God, I hate pissing into the wind...

Bobzorunkle: Good point, I stand corrected. The diminishment of property rights by year zero charter-fetishist judges is a problem, just as free speech has been diminished.

AND, look at what's happened in the US with eminent domain. "Public use" takings has morphed into takings for any well-connected private enterprise which offers the potential for a higher tax yield. The Donald being a prime example.

Steyn was on a roll through the entire playoffs and was the deciding factor in the final series.

There are a chart in National Review (OnDeadTree) a number of years ago that plotted the number of lawyers per 100,000 population against the GDP growth rate of a 10(?) year period for 20-40 nations. (Sorry I'm so vague about the details, I can't find it online anywhere). Anyways, there was a very strong inverse correlation. It's not that lawyers directly try to stop things from happening (absent the Sierra Club), but much of their business these days is as an anti-catalyst. Demand for lawyers services increasing means more hours will be spent in courts by the overall population, which are profitable for no one but the lawyers (and successful plaintiffs) at the expense of the rest of society. Time spent in court for a business is time spent not conducting business; time spent not making products or serving the public, and is therefore an extra cost that must be borne and added to the final price. Even when a company has not been directly sued, they must keep an eye on why their competitors were sued, and ensure that they take the appropriate steps to "protect" themselves. Even going beyond reasonable precautions can't necessarily save a company from a frivolous lawsuit, the only way to protect yourself from losing your business because of a Stella award-winning lawsuit is to have deep pockets.

The "Charter Challenges" project is explicitly designed to break down common law. At the expense of the taxpayers, in at least some instances.

That's an incredible response by Steyn to Cherniak's sophomoric adherence to the Charter..and ignorance of Common Law. As others have said - Steyn's response ought to be framed and posted on law school walls..and in their basic textbooks as well.

As pointed out, common law in contradiction to the Charter, is focused on limiting government power over individuals - while the Charter is..well, its primary focus is to set up Canada as a bilingual nation 'de jure' when 'de facto', Canada is NOT a bilingual nation and the costs of such a fiction are fiscally and culturall, enormous.

Furthermore, the 'right' of free speech is reduced and removed in the Charter by its other focus, multiculturalism. This second focus privileges the 'identity politics and agendas' of minority groups - and their beliefs and behaviour are set up to trump any individual belief and behaviour.

To support this privileging of group identity agendas vs individuals, Canada's Liberal Party set up the HRCs - something that Cherniak utterly ignores - and these act as kangaroo courts that abuse and violate the 'charter' rights of individuals.

Oh, and me no dhimmi, China's property rights are, as bobz pointed out, 'in hard copy' and Canada's property rights have entropied into second level irrelevancies.

And, with regard to Arafat's September 9, 1993 recognition of Israel - well, like it or not, that letter exists. The wording is "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

And, "In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."
In response, that same day, Rabin recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

So, whether you like it or not, mnd, this set of letters between Arafat and Rabin exist. Moving from that, on BOTH sides, is another story.

Wow, classic Mark LOL if you can't run with the big boys stay in the high chair libtards.

Bazinga.

Time spent in court for a business is time spent not conducting business; time spent not making products or serving the public
- C-Miner

Ditto for the time spent on regulatory compliance a subject with which I'm depressingly familiar. And sadly the RULES are drawn up by lawyers who all too often have zero understanding of the regulated entity -- how it actually interacts in the real world.

ET: I know the letter exists. So what? What is more important is that the State of Israel doesn't actually exist on maps in school texts in the PA school system and the mind-numbing joo-hatred that exists on television in the Palestinian territories and the rest of the Arab world. That, my good woman, is what matters, not the taqiyya lies the nazi monster Arafat put on paper.

ET, now that you've identified yourself with my remark, I will remind you again that you said China had better property rights than Canada which must be in the top 10 of outlandish statements made in these pages especially considering your high level of intelligence and erudition.

So, really, it doesn't matter whether it's down on paper or not, the culture unfolds as it will. The Constitution of the United States of America exists too, on paper. On paper only!

What young Jason omits is that it was his current law firm that forced him to stop blogging. His stupidity was embarrassing to them.

Me No Dhimmi - "And also remember that seriousness doesn't necessarily equate with earnestness."

One of my favority P.J. O'Rourke quotes goes: "Earnestness is stupidity sent to college". (Actually he said "seriousness", but I tend to think he meant "earnestness". I am a great believer in the importance of not being earnest.)

Not only was I educated and entertained by Steyn in this article, but now I have a quote I will be using: "The Charter of Useless Crap". Thank you Mark.

In the case of this eager young trudeaupian lawyer, the appelation should be revised to read: "Barfster and Solipster"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism

rabbit writes, “I must give Tim Naumetz credit. His reply to Steyn was courteous, dignified, and restrained, despite the strip that Steyn tore off of him previously.” rabbit, surely you jest.

In his response to Steyn, the thimble-brain, Naumetz, gives an insipid “blame any-one/thing but me”: he says his use of “Vichy” versus “Vimy”—to deliberately smear the Harper government—was partly because of the “much-required vacation” he was about to take.

“MUCH-REQUIRED vacation”? What the h*ll does that mean? Is this a new entitlement for spoiled brats like Tim?

Grow up, Naumetz. (And rabbit, try not to be so gullible: in nature, falling for such a ruse would mean you’d be dead.)

A barrister is someone who meets the emperor with no clothes, and asks him who his tailor is.

A solicitor is someone who then sues that tailor for copyright infringement.

"MARK SAYS:"Barrister and Solicitor"? Does that come with long trousers?"

This is a perfect example why Mr. Steyn remains one the planet's greatest living columnists and writers...

Black Mamba: Thanks! I'll be chuckling over this for the rest of the afternoon. Both PJO's and yours!

I love your style!
In truth, I wish I were a little less earnest. My mother told me I was a very serious little boy, but surely she knew I was just scared to death of the old man who was bugged that I wasn't a "chip off the ole block".

Ah, yes, G's Friend: That's the thing, eh? Steyn educates and entertains which is exactly what the radically under-rated Ann Coulter does. "Demonic" is my morning read at the moment. Was telling my wife that it's a terrific way for an earnest chap to start his day.

I also find that Steyn and Coulter are never really mean-spirited and never take themselves too seriously, a life lesson Charles Krauthammer would do well to learn!

"MARK SAYS:"Barrister and Solicitor"? Does that come with long trousers?"
This is a perfect example why Mr. Steyn remains one the planet's greatest living columnists and writers...
Posted by: bethesdaguy at July 8, 2011 5:47 PM

Damn yes, bethesdaguy! Where the hell did that come from? Is that a fresh coinage? I first heard "pantywaist" from Steyn, tho I don't think he invented it; regardless, he owns it! You laugh out loud at the word without the faintest idea of what it actually means. That is genius.

I'll never forget my first encounters with Steyn at the time of the NP launch. Over and over again I was thinking: WHO. IS. THIS. GUY?! What an unalloyed delight is Steyn.

Bravo Mr Styen!!!

Bravo Mr Steyn!!!

Mark Steyn, IMO, is blessed with a 24 carat gold mind and he uses that mind to put the baffle gab (used by those less well IQ endowed progressive elites) in perspective. One of Mark Steyn's most endearing gifts is his sense of humour and the vast range of that humour! Mark is a National treasure.
I am grateful to him every time I have the pleasure of reading anything he has written. This article and the follow ups were delightful, IMO.

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are the true Canadian heroes for fighting for our pre-"Charter of Worthless Crap" rights. They should both be awarded the Order of Canada.

Looks like little Truffles the Hobbit got his tiny ears pinned back. This serves as a reminder that merely passing the bar is no indication that a man knows anything at all about the law.

And yes, as noted above this type of smackdown is why Truffles' law firm made him stop blogging. A better solution would have been to FIRE the hell out of him, because he's clearly a moron.

"They should both be awarded the Order of Canada."

I won't hold my breath.

I was born before Trudeau became and adult .... this means I grew up knowing perfectly well that an historic event called The Signing of the Articles of the Barons at Runnymeade in the year 1215 had occurred and that this was the foundation of my legal and constitutional rights.

Good enough for me ......

dkjones @ 1:23 p.m.: "I thought Diefenbaker codified something more formal in 1960 with the Bill of Rights?"

True, although the Charter allegedly supersedes it. As I recall the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on at least one occasion that the Bill of Rights carried no legal weight.

However, I believe the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is also supposed to have no legal weight, yet SCC justice Marie Deschamps used it rather than the Canadian Charter in her judgment in the famous Chaoulli health care insurance case of 2005.

Also, the infamous "human rights codes" are supposed to be "quasi-constitutional", whatever that means; it seems to me that it's like being quasi-pregnant. In my opinion it was a fatuous whim of Antonio Lamer (before he became chief justice) that should carry no legal weight whatsoever.

However, in the 2006 Multani case involving the Sikh kirpan, Supreme Court justice Rosalie Abella decided she could judge the case based on "administrative law" rather than the Charter. Her motivation seems pretty clear to me: expand the scope and power of human rights commissions while diminishing Charter rights. I've noted several times that the Charter of Rights is full of errors that need to be corrected, but it does properly include freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and others.

There is an old science joke that "Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases". This maxim would seem to apply just as surely to the Supreme Court of Canada.