This showa that they are slowly winning the war. I believe what the islamists want is full control over everything that is conveyed in any form about their'religion'. Too bad. Here is an interesting link that they won't like, http://www.homa.org/default.asp?TOCID=2083225445 , this has some of the their wacky rules about sexual relations.

Hmmm. Better ban this type of writing as well.

Let's consider some excerpts.

In both periods people turned to the sod house because it was extremely inexpensive to build and took advantage of the materials under foot: the land. In 1894 a sod house with two windows and a wooden door cost $3.74.

Imagine! By suggesting that a sod house was once worth such a low value, the author is obviously suggesting these sods were located in a poor neighbourhood and is implying something about socio-economic class. Consider the next comment.

The condition of the surviving sod houses varies from seriously deteriorating ...

Tsk. More socio-economic bigotry. Ban it.

Many soddies were incorporated into larger structures as the family grew and are now hidden by wood or aluminum siding, making them difficult to spot.

The phrase "soddies were incorporated into larger structures as the family grew" is code language for a reference to polygamy. Soooo...., the article has now moved from national or racial bigotry into religious bigotry. Hmmmm.... Clearly religious-phobic.

A sod cutter was used to harvest the sod: it flipped over a strip of sod approximately eighteen to twenty-four inches wide which was then cut into "brick" size lengths.

Obviously a reference to incitement to violence against sods. Sod cutter indeed! If I were really paranoid about this article, I could talk myself into believing that "harvest the sod" is a reference to slavery but I'll cut them some slack - just this once mind you.

The sod bricks were stacked in alternating fashion with grass side down and laid two bricks thick, flaking the walls up to two feet thick- -more in some areas of the country.

More name-calling. Calling these poor sods bricks. Tsk! Tsk!

Depending on the owner's resources, the exterior walls were often mud plastered or stuccoed for protection.

Now this is getting ridiculous. Now the author has moved to slander. How can he suggest that in a country that prohibits alcohol the soddies are somehow plastered? I'll believe it when I see it. Look at the next comment.

Many soddies started out with low pitched sod roofs, difficult to maintain, sure to leak, and home to a variety of creatures- -including snakes.

Is he secretly calling the sods snakes? It is difficult to determine. This will probably come out in discovery. This is surely going to discovery; after all, I already gave the author the one break I was going to cut him.

Compared to their frame house counterparts, soddies had a low, bulky appearance, due in part to the relative shortness of their exterior walls.

Well, maybe he gets this one half right. Some of the sods do have a rather, well, bulky appearance. Short? I did say half right. Exterior walls? I'm stumped on that one.

With all the talk of terrorism these days, I was looking specifically for references by the author to accusations of terrorism on the part of the soddies, but I could not find any. Not even a reference to a, er, sawed-off shotgun. So the article does not fail on all counts. Yet, it I were to grade it as a whole through the lens of political correctness, I would have to rate it as ... pretty shoddy. Let's close with just one more.

In relation to the many that were built, a few sod houses have resisted returning to the earth and are living long lives in this modern age, providing some a place to live and the rest of us a glimpse into another time when things were rough and low- income housing had a different meaning.

Now, I'm really confused. Until I saw this comment, I was sure that this article was written by someone right of centre racist and I thought I had him on some violation of some type of hate speech. Yet, look at the last comment. Now the author is complaining that the soddies are resisting returning to the earth. Just when I thought the author was a racist, it turns out he is some kind of New Ager; perhaps a kinder, softer David Suzuki type. Then the second sentence. The soddies live long lives in a modern age - and we all know the soddies belong to another age - yet, the author romanticizes about that other age rather than simply reports it. Maybe the author isn't all bad, after all.

On balance, I think an HRC could have a lot of problems with this one. On the one hand, there are clear violations of some of their favourite talking points. On the other, some comments are present in the article that are often made by HRC supporters. If they were to take this one on, they just might find themselves out on a limb, finding that they had sawed off the wrong end.

yawn.
I know an Irish couple (in Canada) who took offence to Frank McCourt's book Angela's Ashes and his portrayal of Irish life.
Just let them (the Saudis/terrorists/Muslims)get over it. If it's truth, let it see the light of day. Often the truth does hurt.

Rich Saudis have been using England's Libel laws to sue many Authors globally who write books on Terrorism or Islam and to date the Saudis have won all their Libel Suits. These books are rendered illegal in England and are pulled from the shelves of stores and libraries. England's Libel Laws are different than the wests, one is guilty of libel until they can prove they aren't. Not an easy thing to prove when you are up against people so filthy rich and morally bankrupt that they bankroll terrorism.

I'd be very careful of anything written in book form that Enters into the House of England/Saud. It's just another phase in the War on Terror, yet another win by the Wahhabis because the left are in bed with them.

First it's words in books, than it's films like Fitma and where will it end? Our utter and complete surrender to Wahhabi Islam of course.

There is a dirt simple answer to this question,

"No, I cannot let you know"

While what the NY legislature has attempted to do here is admirable (for once), the solution to libel tourism starts in the UK, along two different venues: first, some foreign libel defendant needs to actually defend their suit rather than allowing a judgment to be entered by default as Ehrenfeld did. And their defense must be a direct attack on the common law tort of libel in England, namely that the UK's adoption of the Human Rights Act, implementing the European Convention on Human Rights as domestic UK law, requires the same shift in the burden of proof as the First Amendment does in the US, from truth being an affirmative defense to falsehood being an element of the tort, i.e., requiring plaintiffs to the show a defendant acted under the "actual malice" standard of New York Times v. Sullivan.

Second, Parliament could act immediately to adopt that standard legislatively. That will NEVER happen while Labour remains in government. Whether the Tories have the balls to do so as long as wishy-washy "blue-green" David Cameron is their leader is an open question.

Appears that Mr. Mahfouz has some acolyte in Canada that relishes the idea of doing it here.

Dear Kate,

I am a big fan of your blog. I am also very concerned about the threat to free speech from the HRCs as well as from Saudi libel 'tourism'.

However, Warman's complaint against you and the others is different - it's that you defamed him. And, much as I dislike him, he has a point. You and Ezra et.al. claimed that he was the author of the Cools post when you didn't (and still don't) have any solid proof that he did.

Surely even bloggers should not level serious charges against people without being very certain that they are true.

Best,

Craig

Well that's it folks. Craig said ya did it.

Pay up!

Slow, Slow steps towards chains. Its happening here now. How soon before your computer is taken away, your right to speak taken from you by abuse of Court or Government?

Support Kate & the Sublime six till it bleeds. This is a test case, stop the tactics of indimidation now!!!

This is supposed to solve all our power problems.

These chaps are either very good actors or have possibly discovered something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M&feature=related

= TG

Craig,

Warman has admittedly posted hatred under various names in the past in order to bait and entrap. It therefore stands to reason that one may assume he did it again with Anne Cools, given that the hate message came from his IP address. Get it?

Hey irwin daisy,

It's more complicated than that. It's not "his" IP address. It's a Rogers address that he might have used - emphasis on "might".

http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-there-is-room-for-doubt-about.html

Get it?

Atlanticjim,

Of course Kate "did it". The question is whether what she said was defamatory or not. And on that point, I think that we all - bloggers included - should be sure we have our facts straight before accusing people of making racist posts. I think Warman very well might have made the Cools post (he's admitted to making others). But we don't know that he did and the bloggers concerned should have been more cautious (as JK was).

my great grandparents lived in a hole in the ground with a roof for a year then progressed to a sod house....thence to a frame dwelling....this was in Saskatchewan.... my great grandmother for special occasions like a birthday would make a mud slurry and spread it over the dirt floor...in the frozen morning the family would wake to a floor that was like the icing on a chocolate cake....she was a kissinger (a Jewess?) from Vienna(sachertorte!)....her husband...a german from "someplace with a lot of Turks" arrived in canada just before confederation and met her at the winnipeg train station where the men would go to look for wives on their arrival to the promised land....

but i consider myself irish with a dollop of this and that....and enjoy a joke about dumb irishmen as much as a newfy does about stupid newfs....

so when did people start taking themselves so seriously ?

P.S....this post has been scrubbed clean of any reference to warren kinsella that may or may not intentionally or otherwise expose him to hatred or contempt now or in the future....and if a scintilla of criticism of him should have escaped my vigilant eye i apologize and beg pardon.....in the fullest most forthright manner the english language is capable of exoressing.

john begley,

I would humbly submit that it seems only the left, and in fact, only the most radical and fascist left are taking themselves that seriously. And given that they are the ones propogating these tensions and nefarious underhanded dealings in order to make our most fundamental freedoms illegal - these malcontents and their malicious work has been exposed and as a result they are now skittering about, like exposed coakroaches, as they might have to, for survival.

Craig, no insult meant by "get it". However, you might want to look at how and why Warman attached Kate to this charge and take that into your consideration.

hell irwin...ypu don't have to get all 'umble with me...i'm jus' folks.....go ahead...speak yer mind...tear me a new basic fundament if you can....it jus' makes me wiser learning where i went wrong in my thinking.

P.S. in good faith this post has been totally cleansed of ANY anti warren kinsella sentiment....or so is my heart's desire.

Irwin daisy,

No offense taken. I read the statement of claim quickly (on Ezra's site). I thought Kate was named in connection with the Cools post? Will re-read it.

The link from bouquets of gray is also worth reading. If he/she is even half right it may be hard to prove that it was Warman (especially since the onus is on the defendants).

I'm not going to enter into discussion of the pros and cons of the case, so there's no point asking, Craig. Of course there's a difference between the CHRC and the Warman libel suit, but the linkage is in the context.

I am not being sued for anything I wrote, but for a voluntarily retracted post by Kathy Shaidle and comments posted while I was in Portland in January.

Craig,

Libel cases don't work on the basis of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." They work on the basis of the "balance of probabilities."

While it is possible that Warmin didn't post the item in question, all of the evidence point strongly in that direction and I don't think it should be a problem in a REAL court tried by a REAL judge (and the day I'm happy with judges means the alternative is grim indeed!)

I just hope that Kate et al find a way to eliminate Warmin's attempt to avoid being questioned into the grave.

Kate,

Sorry. I read the statement of claim quickly and didn't realize that you had not posted anything defamatory about Warman.

but why oh why isn't Lucy suing Mark Steyn who started the whole ball rolling?