First They Came For The Bloggers from Ambient Irony
And I didn't speak out, because - Hey! Wait a minute! Via Debbye of Being American in T.O. and Kate of Small Dead Animals comes the news that Andrew Coyne is being sued for libel by the Chief of Staff... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 12:57 AM

"Reasonable Limits" Clause Gags Press

Clause 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms....

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Exerpted from Free Speech and Joseph Howe by Cecil Rosner published in The Beaver, Feb/Mar 2005...

On New Years Day, 1835 a letter appeared in the Halifax newspaper Novascotian

In a young and poor country, where the sons of rich and favoured families alone receive education at the public expense - where the many must toil to support the extortions and extractions of a few; where the hard earnings of the people are lavished on an Aristocracy, who repay their ill timed generosity with contempt and insult; it requires no ordinary nerve in men of moderate circumstances and humble pretensions, to stand forward and bodly protest against measures which are fast working the ruin of the Province.

[...]

Is it not notorious, that one of the present active Magistrates has contrived for years to filch from one establishment, and that dedicated to the comfort of the poor and destitute, at least £300 per annum?...These things, Mr. Howe, cannot much longer be endured, even by the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of Nova Scotia.

The publisher of the Novascotian was a man named Joseph Howe. Following publication of the letter, "Justice moved rapidly". Howe was charged with "seditiously contriving, devising and intending to stir up and incite discontent and sedition among His Majesty's subjects." Then (as now it would seem) truth was no defense in a case of criminal libel and no attorney would take on the case in Howe's defense. He chose therefore, to speak for himself. In the trial before a jury, which took place March 2, 1835, Howe issued a scathing denounciation of arbitrary power and a ringing endorsement of freedom of speech. He was aquited. Magistrates were forced to resign.

Unfortunately, the Howe verdict was more symbolic than enduring as a legal precedent. Clause 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the phrase...subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. and this interpretive leeway has been employed by the judiciary in Canada to successfully prosecute reporters and the media for libel even in instances when the published information was true and in the public interest. Thus it remains to this day that, in Canada, the truth is not a sufficient defense in a case of libel.

In the United States, it is extremely difficult for public figures to bring libel charges against anyone as a result of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press as well as a landmark 1964 ruling in the case known as New York Times v. Sullivan. The cornerstone of this ruling was the idea that the people should have the right to criticize their elected representatives without fear of repercussion. Canadians, sadly, do not enjoy these freedoms.

"Let every Canadian know, whether they wish us well or ill, we shall pay any price, break any law, meet any crook, sellout any friend, bribe any foe, to assure the survival of corruption and Liberal power"

Now that the fix is in, and this story will be buried along with all the othe skeletons in the Liberal closets, little wacky Jacky can play "principled politician".

It's a good thing my threshold for nausea increases by the day.

Did you know, that they are considering replacing Norwegian Brown Rats with Lawyers for laboratory experiments? The reasons are threefold:
1. There are, ( in this country), more lawyers than rats.
2. The lab technicians don't get so attached to them.
3. There are some things that a rat would not do.

Kate, thanks, it's good to see you in this! I'm sorry for the part I played in taking comments in the previous off-topic but we "stayed out of your liquor cabinet" and didn't break any furniture.

Some holiday weekend.

I suggest everyone calm down on this - Coyne may have shut dow comments because of the stupidity of the comments on Saturday.

In the meanwhile, we wait to see if AC is actually sued. If so, then we move. Hard.

Oh, KATE!
If I were half my age, (and still older than YOU), and if I were not already wedded, (or whatever they call it these days)), I would be strumming my swinet, ( two strings stretched across a pig's ass and plucked with a pitchfork), outside your doorstep in the moonlight.)
"WAR is the pursuit of Politics, by other means>"and: " In life-there are only two things that are truly worthy of a man's attention: War & Politics"- Napolean. (Hey- you got any jewelery I could hock to arm myself with?)
Give it up, Folks- for Kate!

It's an incredible violation of our democratic rights - both the scenario played out by the Liberals over the past weeks (and years)- and what they are now doing to shut down citizens who criticize them.
Where are we headed? The Third Reich?

Cartoon in newspaper, of a boy dog who is moving away because his owner has 'got it on' with some bimbo, talking to his girldog neighbour:
he: " I am moving away because my owner has taken up with some bimbo, but I will always remember you as one of the guys."
Girldog: "That is because you have been neutered."
Haw!

ET,

Like Greg mentioned in a previous post, Big Lever Required.

We all await the re-emergence of AC. I am sure he will explain his absence...which may be waterskiing, hangover or a night of passion....maybe all three :->

To Kate's point, the selective nature of Tiny Tim's legal threats speaks volumes....

Should it be the case that Coyne is being sued, I would be more than willing to republish the contraband material on my blogs and make sure it stays 'out there'. (Proviso: this has to be Coyne's material and not a comment posted by a nutter.) I would encourage other bloggers to follow suit.

"Let every Canadian know, whether they wish us well or ill, we shall pay any price, break any law, meet any crook, sellout any friend, bribe any foe, silence any dissent, to assure the survival of corruption and Liberal power."

AC has updated his site, to explain that it was indeed the excessive ravings of the fringe that led him to suspend commentary on his site.

My comment about waiting to see if Murphy pursues legal action stands.

Yeah Stephen... why not the Globe and Mail, which published the transcript? Why not CTV's Mike Duffy, who played part of the tape and identified Tim Murphy speaking on it?

Count me in... I'll post the material... They can't get all of us right?

Ok, so Coyne has suspended all commenting indefinitely on his site... guess what Kate, the comment explosion is moving here now.

The only way to exert a minimal amount of control over comments is to force people to register and verify their email...then you can cut off their participation.

Barring that you have to edit comments to protect your legal and/or credibility position.

I am relieved that the comments were suspended at AC due to wingnuts and not due to libel chill

I haven't seen that comment on AC's site that it was the 'excessive ravings' that prompted him to close down the comments. I find that a suspicious reason.
There are many websites that are run by and for, excessive ravings, from the leftist scenarios to the outright insane. No gov't that has the right to infringe on these or to sue someone for these comments.

Therefore, AC could have deleted various posts that he considered did not reflect well on his site. But why close everything down? Why close down all commentary?

And - the lawsuit is, I'm suggesting, in my paranoia, not a spontaneous reaction but an agenda.
The Liberals do not like blogs. The Gomery Inquiry was shut down to the public for days and the reasoning was, at best, weak. Captain's Quarters picked up the slack and kept freedom of information open. I doubt that the Liberals liked that. I'm suggesting that this Murphy agenda is against blogs and blogging. Take out a major blog and a major analyzer - and frighten the rest of the blogging world to silence.

Duceppe? Show the power of the Liberals against 'the separatistes' and denigrate, in the public eye, an ally of Harper. Try to force Harper to speak in favour of Duceppe, to further solidify the image of Harper-Duceppe in the publicl eye. Don't sue Layton, because the agenda is to establish a firm link of Harper-Duceppe.
Harper will be portrayed as committed to the break-up of the country, aligning himself with both Quebec AND Western 'separatistes'.

So- if the CPC campaign on corruption, the Liberals are going to campaign on Unity vs Separation.

And, the Liberals must, within this agenda, silence commentary - from critical commentators - especially if they have blogs. I'm suggesting that it will be very important, in the next few months, for the Liberals to attempt to shut down blogs.
Paranoia?

Excellent piece by Lorrie Goldstein in today's Toronto Sun advising Harper to ignore the media. Most of them are hyper, smug and self-righteous, grew up in Trudeau's welfare state, etc. etc. It's an open letter to Harper and gave me a real life. www.torontosun.com

Apologies to AC if we did get out of hand. Toronto's communist daily, the Toronto Star, has a piece on Murphy and how he saved the day. He is considering his legal options, blah blah. Paints the guy as some sort of Joan of Arc and peace-broker as he aided Stick Chick's wobbly passage across the House floor. Too much before the eggs bennie.

Andrew was correct to do what he did. I read some of those posts last night. They were way, way out of line.

People need a place to let off steam about political events. They do not need a place to abuse the trust of others with juvenile comments which would not even be allowed in a biker gang's sandbox.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater (1909-1998)

What say you?

Iron Lady,

Yes it was a little much for me as well.

Having a familiarity with getting stories in the media I amazed that the CPC is not acheiving. They are either not trying, really bada at it or their relationships with media are terrible.

Yes there is always a favourite journalist and their own biases but trust me most journalists are looking for decent stories so the more you can give them a pre cooked story the better.

Stephen H...tme to ask some hard questions of Mr Norquay...

For example....there was a nice puff piece on Friday about how happy the Harper kids were that there was no election because it meant they got to take home the school hamster....and that the hamster goes back to school on Tuesday AND that Harper walks his kids to school.

There better be a picture in Wednesday's paper of Harper carryng the hamster walking his kids to school...to good an opportunity. Of course the headline will be

Hamster stays at back of cage becasue it Harper scared it.

The other positive sign was the story that Lauren Harper had sent over dinner to P Mackay after hearing he hadnt eaten for a couple of days...she is a secret weapon, much like Laura Bush....she is a good Alberta girl, level headed.

They need to get her out there to soften the image and provide some support. Like Bush it goes like this...well I like his wife, and she seems to keep him from going to far off and she loves im so maybe he isnt the devil the other side says he is.....

I am sure Harper is unwiling to put his family through that....but it comes with the territory and you only need to do it sparingly....you can leave the kids out of it but Lauren should have a higher profile. I bet most Canadians dont know he is married and has two wonderful kids....

The Reich Press Chamber/Reich Press Leader (NSDAP)

http://www.rapp.org/url/?XIXRXVYF

Freedom of the Press?

I disagree with you TwoCents. There were many weird comments last night but I've read weirder things in the newspapers. In fact, I've heard weirder things on the news.

Coyne should have stepped in last night and said enough (he's done so before) and that would have done the deed. I guess he must have received another e-mail from 'Nolo' reminding him to keep his blog pruned to maintain an air of elegance and intellectual purity.

What's next? No more Librano$ election sign generator?

I like the Libranos sign generator.

I thought the sexual innuendos about Joe were over the top. I sympathize with Andrew. He doesn't have time to weed out the worst stuff; therefore let someone else do it.

We need someone of Andrew's intelligence and clout to keep up his critique of the government. We don't need him to waste his time editing smart ass comments from juveniles.

Just my two cents.

Be very careful, Kate. I see some of the nutbars from the AC blog have migrated to your site. The stuff that was posted on AC's blog yesterday made me ashamed to be a member of CPC and I said so which of course laid me open to insults and obnoxious remarks regarding my loyalty to CPC. I also mentioned that if I was AC I would be so embarrassed I'd shut down the blog. I'm sure he didn't have to listen to me to do the right thing. The slanderous and disgraceful postings yesterday were surely an embarrassment to not only AC but every member of CPC who strives for fairness and openess. Why in the world would we want to use Liberal tactics which we know are so wrong? Small wonder many see us as being "creepy". Again, Kate, be careful of these disgusting migrants who have shut down AC's blog.

ET:

"Therefore, AC could have deleted various posts that he considered did not reflect well on his site. But why close everything down? Why close down all commentary?"

Perhaps - if he had no other job.... ET, there were three or four threads dating from Belinda's defection that had gone over 600 posts, and one that was over 1,000. While possible to monitor on a post-by-post basis, it would be quite an investment of time and effort, and what does Coyne get out of it? The thread last night on Joe Who was over the line. Sure - you may have seen weirder conspiracy theories or other even more distasteful on the net, or even in press, but that is not a strong argument for Coyne to host them. I think Andrew has two primary concerns if he leaves comments up:
1) His personal reputation as a reliable, well-informed, and objective journalist, as well as his own comfort with the material presented;
2) Potential exposure for libel, based on the material he is hosting.

According to his post this morning, it was the first concern that led him to take down the comment facility. Only Andrew (and his or the NP's lawyers) will ever know how much the second concern played in his decision, particularly in light of Tim Murphy's SLAP suit.

The person who started the thread, and the people who participated in it (and I include myself) should have exhibited greater self control, and remembered that we were guests, not owners. It is unfortunate that AC's site does not presently (and may never again) allow comments.

Cheers,

Dean

Everybody political correct this morning.
No smart ass remarks from juviniles please.
I failed grade 9 highschool, dropped out in grade 10, been drivig truck since for $10.00/hr, believe it or not saved enough money to buy a computer 6 months ago and here Iam.
I thought the bloggers had more class than my crowd, obiviously wrong, I think Ill go to The Blackfoot Truckstop and hang with some real men in stead of political correct bloggers.

Nutbar?
BC CON (One of those anonymous right-wingers, eh?). You should reread who said what on AC's blog last night. None of the posters here are new and none of them can be accussed of contributing to the weirdness that caused the suspension. Unless you consider my comment about Clark becoming the next GG part of the axis of lunacy?

PS. I love your "be careful" opener. Scary!

I agree, Anselm:

These are unusually harsh words from Mr. Coyne:

"The comments have frankly gone to seed, overrun with western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks. "

"I have no desire for this site to serve as a clubhouse for hard-right wackos, usually anonymous, with way too much time on their hands."

I, for one, didn't realize that western separatists were to be considered in the same realm as Bilderberg conspiracy theorists, right wing wackos and "other cranks". And I refuse to accept that as a fair condemnation.

Western separatists are not IMHO wackos or part of some weird fringe element. And I suspect their numbers were not congruent with the people who were posting anti-Clark stuff. They are simply frustrated westerners who, having seemingly exhausted all avenues to obtain a voice at the table, have decide that it would be OK for Alberta, BC, and Man/Sask to secede from Canada. Maybe that is all bluff and bluster, but it has worked for Quebec over the years and they are not dishonourable simply because they see the virtue in becoming a squeaky wheel.

It is certainly Coyne's perogative to monitor, censor and even close down his comments section. Though I was off the site when the apparently egregious Clarkian comments flew I can see why he would not wish to be associated with gay bashing of any sort. Nor would I for that matter.

Having said that, it is the nature of open comment sites to get a little unruly at times, and they do tend to get a cross section of people. In the past, however, all it took was the mildest rebuke from moderator Andrew to settle everyone down. Now it appears he has chosen to take down the mike, pack up his gear and close down the auditorium.

Seems just a little severe to me.

Clearthinker and Anselm: Thank you for your comments which seem a tad more restrained than your usual input. I'm just waiting for Brian Walsh to show up.

Sorry you don't agree with opinions I may have offered in the past, BC Con.

Funny though. I though that throwing them out there was the stated purpose of a site such as this.

Its too bad we have to live with the great unwashed of canada, you know, people in low places, people who lack education, go to work everyday and watch hockey.
Im disappointed with AC,he folded like a cheap lawn chair.
I love AC for his work/writings.
As far as lawsuit, bring it on baby, lets go to the supreme court of canada and get ther read on it.Appeasement never works with bullys...Paul Martin, see you in court.

Restrained?

Here is the last comment that I posted to Coyne's site: "Here is the Liberal Party election strategy: The Conservatives are an angry party led by people with narrow views. CTV News."

If you could check, you would discover that I said:
1. Brison looks, acts, talks and gestures like Joe Clark
2. Joe Clark has been silent lately because he will become the next GG. Expect the announcement in the fall.

I like reading what people have to say (including BWalsh). I love free speaking people. They are entertaining!

I would buy into the stated reasonings for the shutting down of AC's comments except for a few things:

1) western separatism - AC himself has actually made comments seeing that as a reasonable response to what's going on in Ottawa now and for the last what, 30 years?
2) far more importantly, the REMOVAL OF ALL CONTENT RELATING TO THE GREWAL TAPE.

hmmmmm....

And yes, it was getting a bit tinfoil hattish in there for a while, but only for a short period and then it self-corrected.

I suspect we'll soon be contributing to a defense fund.

You're right, DOUG. I respect and admire AC as one of Canada's few free-thinking journalists.

As I said, because I didn't see the full length and breadth of the Clarkian stuff I'm not sure what the exact reason was for shutting down the site -- perhaps it was a combination of things, the lawsuit included.

ANSELM: We have just been through a two week period in which our basic rights as citizens of Canada have been brazenly abrogated by a proven corrupt and criminal ruling party. I cannot state this strongly enough. We have witnessed shameless breaching of parliamentary protocol, out and out bribery, craven defections, continual smears throughout and the recent narrow passage of a vote on an irresponsible and profligate budget that has severe ramifications with respect to the mid- and long -term fiscal health of this country.

Is it any wonder more than a few of us are angry and frustrated? In light of what has befallen us, I'm surprised there was not more naked vitriol on display. At any rate, as you say there's nothing wrong with spirited discussion. I believe the majority of people on here are not here just to aggravate and flame, but if provoked they can and will give as good as they get.

KATE:

My thanks and appreciation for getting on this story and doing something about it! Blogging has become an important venue for getting the real truth out that has been hidden in much of Canadian media. You can tell that it's having an effect by the very fact that it's generating some action from the people who have something to lose by letting the truth get out. That just means that it's time to Stand Fast and keep it up.

It's too baed about AC's blog - I really appreciated the comments and the diversity of opinions expressed. I did note that some comments were getting into serious wingnut territory yesterday. No doubt AC has been advised to be somewhat circumspect under the circumstances and you can't blame him for that.

Just hope it out works out well and that it doesn't shut down the important work blogging has done - guess that would be up to us, right?

CANDACE:

Good eyes.

I didn't notice that the meat of the Grewal stuff had disappeared. AC is most likely getting legal advice, because the part he took out contained his well worded thread of implications and the rationale for suggesting this was more than just a friendly phone call from "dancin' Tim" Murphy.

BC Con: Most of the folks on that board would have been delighted if Brian Walsh and Joe Green had been paired off long ago.

But the real problem wasn't one or two indivduals. As the traffic rises on an unmoderated site with broad public appeal it trends toward resembling a usenet newsgroup, which is incompatable with the purpose of AC's blog. Imagine what his site would have looked like at 100,000 hits per day.

Having said that your last shot at Anselm and Clearthinker wasn't fair. It's not like anyone can read AC's blog to verify your characterization.

Great post, KATE.

I wish I had picked up some beer at the store so I could be joining you!

As I said on another thread, AC is most likely getting legal advice, because his site no longer contains the meat of the Grewal story and the part he took out contained his well worded thread of implications and the rationale for suggesting this was more than just a friendly phone call from "dancin' Tim" Murphy.

Or, and I can't help but think this, Mr. ($100 million-Liberal largesse taxpayer funded Human Rights Museum) Asper has finally found a quasi-legal excuse to force our friend and mentor Coyne to shut up.

Now that would be a pity.

Thanks for the D, Hard Right.

I think you are incorrect about the "meat of his posts" being changed. I don't see any changes.

Corus radio/tv network, ie, Dave Rutherford, Charles Adler, Rob Breckinridge@theworldtonight.ca have been all over those tapes for days and immediately upon there initial release not to mention g&m,ctv,global,rogers/shaw...why pick on AC, I dont get it?

I too find Andrew Coyne's reasons insufficient for shutting down all comments on his blog. Western separatism? What's wrong with that? Right wing wackos? Definition? I didn't see the Clark posts so can't comment. (Are people saying that he'll be the next G-G? ??? But, Adrienne wants it for life!!).

It's useless to speculate on Coyne's actions; he's one of the best and bravest, but I find several things disturbing.
As far as AC is concerned - I find his reasons rather weak..but...they are his reasons.
What is disturbing is that the Grewal content/posts are gone. And - the fact that the Liberal Party (via Murphy) are suing him.

I think that there are several very serious problems in Canada.

The first, is that we are no longer a democracy but an oligarchy. The great majority of decisions about internal and external agendas, and about taxpayer money, have moved beyond the control of the electorate. More and more of our government has moved into the hands of non-elected officers. The Senate, Deputy Ministers, lobbyists, friends of friends, judges, ministries, contracts awarded, more and more aspects of the economy are run by the gov't rather than by private systems and their heads are all appointed..etc, etc. And, all are beyond the reach of auditing and accountability. This is serious. Most of our governance has moved beyond any accountability.

We are NOT a democracy. The 'fact' that we elect ONE of our two bicameral houses every few years does not mean we are democratic, for most of the decision-making has moved outside of this one house.

Within a state whose government has moved into private rather than elected hands, corruption is inevitable. That too has happened. Our gov't has become the tool of some private corporations - the PowerCorp/Desmarais Group.

The second major problem is the fact that the infrastructure of decision making - and those decisions have moved outside the purview of the electorate - is out of date and incorrect for our size of population.

Believe it or not - but - the structure of a government is directly related to the size of its population and the nature/diversity of its economy! (I teach this stuff...if anyone wants to know more..). Canada's population has become too large - and its geographic territory and economy - are too diverse for a centralist political system. It HAS to decentralize to acknowledge and serve this size and diversity. I'm suggesting five or six regions of self-organized gov't, with a vastly, vastly reduced federal gov't. I think that the immediacy of response, the relevance, the taking out of the huge waste of money by the federal mediary bureaucracy, would greatly strengthen regional economies...and strengthen Canada as a Nation made up of these federated regions.

The problem is - the Liberal Party is the one that has become corrupted. (I'm saying that it could be ANY party; our problems are deeper than party policy and are infrastructural).
The Liberals now will do anything, and the PowerCorp aides will do anything, to maintain them in power.

Therefore - free speech, criticism, commentary - are not welcome in current Canada. Blogs are not welcomed and will be challenged.

Remember the last ads of the Liberals - where they effectively state that anyone who is NOT Liberal is 'unCanadian'.

Do you realize what they are saying? They are openly denying people the Right to Dissent.

Karl Popper has written at length about the dangers of the Closed Society - and Canada has become one. Natan Sharansky has also written about the difference between a Fear Society and a Freedom Society.

"Free societies...thrive on dissent'..[while] "fear societies...ban it". "Societies that do not allow dissent will never protect human rights".

What I'm worried about, is that Canada has, as it has lost its democracy, become a society of fear.

How does Canada deal with differences of opinion? Does it allow them to be expressed publicly? Will it allow those who suggest that the current infrastructure should be changed - will it allow people to express and discuss these views? That's a free society.
Or, is it 'unCanadian' to dissent, to discuss not simply superficial but deep structural changes? The Liberals are setting up a dangerous society - if dissent is defined as 'heretical'.

Maybe AC is speaking to us in code - like he's been ordered to cease and desist, or at least discontinue poking the pig until this mess is sorted out. There were some out-there comments that might provide ammo for those intent on deconstructing free speech, which seems to be the case. Let Earnscliffe control the media agenda forever. God Bless America.

ET, you teach this stuff? By any chance are you one of my daughter's profs at Queens? She is a political major there and your thoughts sound just like many of her descriptions. I hope your students are paying attention, don't forget to test them!

I'm behind you 100%, ET. I read Sharansky's book a while agao and even though he made no reference to Canada I couldn't help but note the disturbing similarities between Canada and other "fear society" countries.

I know some people reading this will think "oh, oh, here goes another tinhat nutjob", but I honestly believe that whether by design or neglect we are moving inexorably in that direction. As someone posted earlier, individual and collective freedoms are rarely taken away wholesale, they are usually whittled away so quietly you barely notice it until they're gone.

Oops. How "unCanadian" of me to mention that.

KATE: I know whatyou mean, I didn';t notice it until Candace pointed it out. if you take another look at the site you'll notice the G&M stuff is still there but Andrew's cogent analysis and supplementary information pertaining to criminal code issues is gone.

IRON LADY (have always loved that name, by the way):

Whatever has happened it is disconcerting at best to the notion of free speech. It may be a combination of things from ACs perspective, and he should definitely act in his own best legal interests, but from what people have been saying about last night the Clark stuff may have gotten out of hand as he says and contributed to his decision.

ET: Excellent. It's amazing how effective a well-considered post can be without resorting to an exercise in name-calling and false accusations. As an example, on AC's blog a woman posted an objection to a "gentleman" referring to a senator as a "broad" rather than "woman" and of course the "gentleman" responded with a huge dose of what he considered to be witty vitriol which was extremely embarrassing to me and, I'm sure, the woman. Hey! I'm OT. To return, your post is the stuff I look for when I get the time to surf the blogs. Thank you and thank you too, Kate for hosting him.

BC Con:

Thanks for your third polite reinforcement of the "no vitriol" code.

At the risk of sounding uncharitable, I think everyone has the point by now.

What's happening to AC should outrage other journalists, but as Lorrie Goldstein pointed out this a.m., they're too self-absorbed/serving to jeopardize their own skins for something as lame as free speech. Let's face it, journalism these days is more a case of marketing and rewriting press releases, and that's about it. The MSM are marketers not reporters. Somebody earlier pointed out to CPC media relations. I think they need an overhaul.I'm going to offer my services to my local guy 'cause that's what I do in the sometimes real world. There is a lot more that should be done than is being done. Have you noticed the Libs are putting their young women out front and centre to appeal to that segment of voters? Tories need an image overhaul that doesn't include reinventing themselves. And more than anything, they have to give the brush-off to MSM excluding Tory-friendly media like the Sun and (grudgingly, here) the NP. You won't get respect by being a pushover, particularly among a group who have no code of ethics to begin with.

andrew is probably shaking in his boots right now, and for good reason i might add: he is running against a set of ruthless individuals, whom have pulled the first ever dethroning of a sitting prime minister. the same gang has just trashed hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition.

given the goliath he is up against, i can respect his decision to scrub his blog. the name calling in the last entry in the blog, imo, is an insight into the mind of a guy threatened by the liberal party, with court action. given that around 90% of the judges named in ontario in the past 12 years are liberal, what is the probability of judging the case in front of one?

and don't think for a second that going to appeals will solve the problem!

as i've said yesterday, i am willing to put money where my mouth is and contribute to his defense fund. i urge the rest of the gang think about that too.

"...the name calling in the last entry in the blog, imo, is an insight into the mind of a guy threatened by the liberal party,..."

What did you mean by that, EPU? can you flesh it out for me?

clearthinker:

"overrun with western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks"

"I have no desire for this site to serve as a clubhouse for hard-right wackos"

Thanks, EPU, but did you mean he was denouncing and insulting western separatism because he was afraid of the Murphy legal imbroglio?

clearthinker:

my own interpretation: start the name calling and try to dissociate as fast as possible, to have a reasonable defence if needed. it's only logical, imo, for him to try to build defences as fast as possible. the libs don't play games!

I am a former member of Reform/Canadian Alliance and an active member of the CPC. I also fully support Stephen Harper's leadership.

And, I have no problem with Joe Clark becoming GG.

He's a much better choice for GG than most people I could imagine Paul Martin choosing.

Boy, if it were true, that would be a shame.

AC always struck me as unflappable in matters of principle. But as I wrote in an earlier comment, I was certainly taken aback and even insulted by his unnecessary condemnation of western separatists as a group of right wing wackos.

I happen to be one of those people who believe it must be considered and threatened, even as a last resort -- as a viable way in which to regain our rights as western Canadian taxpayers and citizens.

Maybe he was just having a bad day....

You're right, two cents, he could do far worse. And probably will.

I hear David Akhenakew (sp?) is available.

clearthinker: Then again the volume of postings and some of the crankiness really were starting to crowd out the host. Check out the following artistic rendering of the last days of his blog:

http://art.half.ebay.com/prod130/2416910.jpeg

His stated reasons are a fairly good place to start. And of course the suit doesn't exactly leave him extra free time.

You're probably right, HRW.

LOL (Where did you get that link?)

Just googled for "thidwick". It's from a Dr. Sueuss story.

The first premise of a serious discussion is to start from seriously stated intentions and to seriously demonstrate otherwise. Assuming the worst and putting the burden of proof on the accused, just doesn't cut it.

Not lumping you in their clearthinker, but AC was probably getting diminishing returns from the time he invested to generate serious discussion on his blog. He'll likely find another way to try another version of his experiment.

Here we go folks. The loonies have decided its time to start slagging AC. How soon the worm turns. Twenty-four hours ago he was a hero. Now he's (a) a wimp who caved into the Libs and MSM or (b) a Dr Sueuss psuedo-scientist who has the gall to question the motives and behavior of the right-wing wackos. I'm a social AND fiscal conservative and I dislike red tories but good god what's to become of the CPC with these back-stabbers around? Obviously they belong in the LPC.

Happy to contribute to AC's defence. I think we've seen the shape to come vis a vis media, if today's Toronto Star profile of Tim Murphy is anything to go by. It appears that the media no longer care about freedom of speech since they rely on PMO news releases anyway. That said, the Sob & Wail has been diligent in its coverage of Gomery, which I find puzzling for a Liberal mouthpiece. Asper could make life very difficult for the Librano$ if he turned his staff loose - really loose - to write what they want. I think his liberalism might be too in-bred. AC doesn't strike me as the type who will be cowed by this. Rather, I think it'll get his back way up and he'll call in some markers for backup (Steyn, Frum, and of course, Christie Blatchford).

BC Con, Calm down and re-read. I post the Seuss link. 'm a Geissel fan AND an AC fan. As AC stated his blog and the quality of discussion were getting overwhelmed of late. Kudos to him for saying so.

I'll never know whether I was one of the "whackos," but I wasn't prepared to get involved in the "Joe Clark" thread.  That was just plain off-the-wall...

As for Western Separatism, I don't remember advocating it — I'm more of a reluctant Alberta separatist myself.  Emphasis on the "reluctant," with a side order of sadness.

Anyway, lots of people are missing one important point: it's Andrew's blog.  In the end, he can bloody well do what he wants, 'cause he's paying the dime.  He's not infringing on your right of free speech — he's simply saying "Stop crapping on my couch and get outta my house!"

He's got that right.  As for the other stuff he's removed, he may be doing it for simple legal expediency, until such time as the whole Tim Murphy imbroglio gets resolved.  Can't say I blame him.

The loss of comments at Coyne's is a real shame. I enjoyed reading the best of those as much as Andrew's words. There are many very articulate people that were frequently contributing to a usually excellent discussion.

I hope it will continue here, and that we have learned enough from Coyne shutting down that Kate won't have to do something similar here.

These forums are necessary - at least for me. I learn a great deal from the community that develops around these blogs.

Thanks for remaining open for business, Kate, and I promise I will do my part to allow you to keep comments open.

Where are we headed? The Third Reich?
Posted by: ET at May 22, 2005 12:19 PM

T, not he third recih.....

.... the second familly compact!

The Desmarais Familly.

Garth and BC Con:

Please settle down, people. Nobody's slagging AC here. In fact, if you read back, every one of us has sympathized not only with his current legal woes but also that he had to close down his comments board. Harmless speculation about the potential reasons he shut down is not disrespectful in any way. To a person we have said how much we admire and respect the man.

As for you in particular BC Con, for someone who was so very concerned about decorum and civility just a short time ago, it didn't take you long to unsheath the machete and show your true nature.

"The loonies have decided its time to start slagging AC.... now he's (a) a wimp who caved into the Libs and MSM or (b) a Dr Sueuss psuedo-scientist who has the gall to question the motives and behavior of the right-wing wackos."

Nice.

ET: You better be carefull or you will lose your job. I used to work in the Education system too, trouble was I really liked it and I taught FACTS. I had grade five students writing compound-complex sentences and learning the parts of speech!! I was teaching 'special ed' and my students were tutoring the rest of the class and sometimes the teachers. I was 'let go' for no reason. My Principle gave me top marks but my Principle was the wife of the Reform Candidate in 1995 and I was supporting her husband. The Lib/ND outfit who control education were "not amused." The Principle lost her job right after the election on some trumped up charges on too much control over students. It was all bogus,and people were caught in lies but it happened anyway. A lot of those accusations were leveled by 'Red Tories" proping up the Lib who had won the riding. Does Belinda suprise me? Not at all, I too ,saw it comming. Like a recurring nightmare.
Since then I have applied for many government jobs that I am qualified for and I don't even get an interview - I am on the 'do not call list' I can't even get substitute teaching days. I am not rich and I have no power here in Whitehorse so I cannot raise a stink and get any notice. Whitehorse is the petrie dish for Canada, it is a 29,000 population of gov't employees and gov't dependant business's - open your yap and they starve you economically until you are FORCED out. The real Yukoners have almost all left this territory and it has been 'repopulated' with gov't friendly ND/LIb supporters (take note Alta.).
There is nothing for me to lose so I say what I like - I wonder if I would do this if I had a $100,000.00 a year job on the line? I hope so - but I don't know, money for not much work is a pretty nice way to live and you get interested in 'other things'. The smug are always affluent - Canada is no exception. Read "We the Living" by Anne Rand.
If it smells like a rat, looks like a rat and stinks like a rat it probably is a rat. If it has a tail, four legs, whiskers, eats garbage, ruins your walls and moves in uninvited and unwelcome, is a rodent and is unhealthy for humans it is a rat or a mouse - it is not a chipmonk.

I forgot to add this with my Anne Rand novel; read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms given to the Soviet citizens in 1928 - it is online - then read Canada's. I think Mr. Trudeau copied that when he was over there supporting Stalin. Trudeau was too far left for the CCF so he joined the Liberal Party.

I had a dream.... that sounds familiar..... in the dream I was surfing the web when I found a site www.you have been conned, upon entering the site ( remember this was a dream) I found out how so many Canadians have been conned into beliveing things that are just not true. It also broke down all Liberal promises so that people could see these things from the eyes of a con-artist explaining in a legalese fashion where the con is. It explained why "waiting for Gomery to finish" does not mean what most think. You can all imagine how sad I was when I woke up and I realised there was no www.you've been conned site. Should have called it a nightmare.

I was part of AC's posts last night. There was a lot of emotion but also some very good posts.

These are emotional times for many Canadians and we do have to maybe focus more on all of the positive steps so many people are taking in trying to become informed.

I think the newscast about the Liberals saying conservatives were angry and narrow minded quite incenced many. One post pointed out that NDP, liberals, the BLOC and many Canadians of no political stripe are rightfully angry these days.

Maybe we have to put our blinders on to these kinds of divisive and broad brushed slurs.

Sorry but I don't agree with your 'don't piss.. comment.'

I was in the thick and thin there yesterday as many here will tell you..

Sure Andrew is nervous due to the lawsuit and he would be.. but he could have shut the site to comments before he did if that was the issue..

Yesterday, there were to many people what you might call 'weird comments' but to others they may have been insightful and truthful too.

Coyne has on a few occasions emailed me and told me that there are certain boundaries he doesn't want crossed on the site. I respect that, since it is his place, but on the other hand I have to wonder why certain issues are a problem for him and not others?

Oh and he summed up the whole deal last night but saying: Bilderbergers and gay infiltration of politics...

Nuff said..

Brian Walsh: We've been wondering when you would show up.

You wrote "I was in the thick and thin there yesterday as many here will tell you.." Absolutely right! And you were one of the worst with intemperate and inane remarks.

You further wrote: "Coyne has on a few occasions emailed me and told me that there are certain boundaries he doesn't want crossed on the site". Why was it necessary for Coyne to email warnings to you? You obviously didn't listen and were one of the main players who have caused the suspension of the comment part of AC's blog.

No one quarrels with fair comment and the expression of diverse views. I trust you will keep your comments within the bounds of good judgement (I hope you saved and will review AC's emails to you) and refrain from the wild-eyed stuff that could place Kate's blog in jeopardy to the degree she would need to take the same action as AC.

Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

BC Con: Sorry, but today you're in real danger of coming off like a geeky hall monitor trying his best to please the teachers. Please keep that in mind as you lurk behind the cyber-lockers with the shiny PC badge you pinned on your lapel and wait to pounce upon unsuspecting "wrongdoers".

Clear: Please read the first para of my last sentence. I believe in free speech and the right of expression but these are rights and privileges that are in danger of being lost when abused. I'm not lurking here or anywhere but I am certainly pissed that when things got out of hand the other night on AC's blog and I posted to suggest toning down the racist and sexist comment certain folks crapped all over me and a couple of others who express opinion similar to mine. Remember the poor woman who posted that she thought it inappropriate to refer to Senator LaBreton as a "broad"? Remember the abuse she got for her trouble? And how about the fellow who identified himself as a Canadian of Japanese extraction? Remember the comment he got when he stated his reservations toward the remarks of the MP for Winnipeg-Charleswood even though he ended up by saying the MP offered an apology and he forgave Mr. Fletcher? I won't even bother to mention the Joe Clarke and "gay-MP" garbage that was posted. Those things were over the top and now we know the results of those intemperate remarks; no more comments on AC's blog.

All I'm interested in is to try to see sda remain as it is - a free expression of various opinion without the loonies going bonkers and causing Kate to either edit or shut down the comments section.

Sooooo .... if you are serious when you offer the quote "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", I am asking that you will extend me the same courtesy without a need to follow it up by dumping on me or anyone else you may not like.

I'm not dumping on you, BC Con. Far from it.

I'm just suggesting that you have already made your self-evident point countless times and that you were in danger of undermining your own cause by doing so. So stop the harping and contribute something worthwhile. You'll get a better reaction, I assure you.

With respect to your attempts to instill civility into the AC slugfest the other night, I have no comment, because I wasn't there and I have no idea what transpired. Perhaps you were justified.

I will say though, that a few of those instances you shared with us are hardly earthshattering. IMHO calling someone a "broad" in the heat of the moment is not a cause for hyperventilation. Far worse things could have been said.

As for the Japanese fellow, I'm afraid I have zero sympathy. I speak and write Japanese, have many Japanese friends, I am married to a Chinese woman and I have been an avid student of Asian history and literature for decades. You will not find a person with more admiration for the Japanese race and culture than me.

HOWEVER, the incontravertible fact here is that the Japanese (or Japs, as they were known) WERE bastards in the period leading up to and during the second World War. They were animalistic, bloodthirsty and sadistic in their treatment of Koreans, Chinese and fellow asiatics (the Rape of Nanjing, etc.) , never mind the way they mistreated and slaughtered countless western prisoners and combatants. (see Kate's recent post for just one example)

THIS IS HISTORY. YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT, OR WISH IT AWAY.

Mr. Unknown of Japanese descent might feel uncomfortable when confronted by these facts, but he can rest assured that he is not being held responsible for them. The MP was referring to the behaviour of Imperial Japanese forces during a war 60 years ago, not him or his kids. I would advise him to GET OVER IT. IT HAPPENED. Any idiot can see that, and only a goddamn self-centered fool would expect sympathy or an apology from someone stating the truth.

Read a few books about the war, my friend. Then you'll realize that the MP was actually being kind when he referred to them only as "bastards".

As for the Joe Clark stuff I have no comment. If it was gay bashing then perhaps it got out of hand. I don't condone that sort of stuff.

But do us all a favour and get off your high horse, will you?

Clear: email

I just checked in here, and I've read the comments, and I have to say that the opposition to what BCcon has said is quite suprising to me. Perhaps some of you didn't read a certain someone's response to the woman who simply pointed out - politely I might add - that his thoughtless and aggressive - and frequent - comments were completely destsructive to any reasonable discourse. What he said to the woman made you feel like you were in a bar listening to some distressed drunk who hated women, but who was so far-gone that he felt his comments were clever. You could almost hear his buddies grunting in the background.

Why anyone here would defend his right to post, on a site which we all apparently valued, is beyond me. I bet that those who have posted here tonight would not tolerate someone being that aggressive and threatening to their sister or mom or girlfriend or wife.

Wide-ranging discourse is STOMPED by such shit, not enlarged.

EBDresden:

Thanks for your comments. It's all sorted out now by email.

Coyne is not a blogger, just a newspaper columnist with a keyboard.