Further to events of this morning; Reading Coyne’s column again, can anyone point me to a passage that accuses Tim Murphy of committing a crime?
You know, among my first thoughts in reading this were that the National Post is a big place, with lawyers and whatnot, to vet columns before they run. Are we assuming too much in thinking this column is the target, or if it is, is this just a ham-fisted attempt by Murphy to intimidate the leading critic of Papa Paul – and more importantly, the powers that be who publish him?
Pure conjecture on my part, I’ll readily admit. But now that I’m in conjecture mode (and the first beer I’ve ever consumed before dinner hour since I turned 17…);
Recall the threats to bloggers for linking to Captains Quarters – and for all the crowing of the blogosphere, that threat was successful – several bloggers fell into line and delinked, while almost all in the mainstream followed suit. For all the pomposity of our press, they are willing litlle sheeple like the rest of us when it comes to, you know – actually taking risks for the truth.
A very long time ago, before I first ventured onto the blogosphere, I speculated that the core difference between Americans and Canadians wasn’t “a more European world view”, or medicare or our “cultural mosaic”.
It is the singular fact that Canadians have never had to fight on their home soil for the right for their nation to exist. We had no Indian wars, no Canadian revolution, no civil war. No Pearl Harbour, no 9/11.
I think that fact alone explains the national angst about “Canadian identity” more than any other. We don’t know how to fight, truly fight for what should be our inalienable rights.
Didn’t I read in the National Post lately that bloggers in BC are now subject to election campaign laws? A provincal court came down with this ruling just recently. I’m not sure of all the implications for bloggers but it sound ominous.
I think whats going on is that since the government has effectively controlled the media, now they are trying to do it to the blogosphere. Its amazing to see how they are trying to crack down on dissent. I didn’t realize how censored the media was in Canada untill I started blogging.
Kate – you are bang on the money. Here are a few observations from one of our posts a few days ago:
*****
In conservative nations, the people own their liberties, and they grudgingly sacrifice as few of them as possible to their government – and the people reserve the right to take their liberty back at any time.
[…]
In liberal nations, the government owns the liberties, and grudgingly accords as few of them as possible to the people – and the government can take those freedoms back at any time.
[…]
Canada’s problem is that we’ve spent too long eating Victory Chocolate through the mesh of the rat cage strapped to our collective faces. We love Big Brother.
*****
It’s a little negative, maybe, but I have come to doubt the feasibility of a genuinely conservative program in this country. You can’t rescue someone who doesn’t understand that he is drowning.
Kate, the column on the blog has been edited. It used to contain quotes from the law books on “buying votes” etc. and had pieces of the transcript from the tape. So now it’s squeaky clean.
And you’re bang on.
So, before you turned 17, how frequently did you drink before the dinner hour?
The government is no doubt “high-fiving” it up with their “vote of confidence” and is flexing its newly invigorated muscle.
But fear not. There are ways…
When one drinks before the dinner hour, one tends to forget details like frequency…
Beer? You should try the ‘real thing’- a Tequila!
(And not that diesel aftertaste Sauza shit, either- you wanna Reposada Herradura, ( you gotta go to Mexico to get that), but you can get a Jivaro at your local hooch dispenser, and that is as close as you can get in Canukistan. (please- do not drive, do not operate dangerous machinery, etc.)
Who has deeper pockets, National Post or Tim Murphy, tax payer dollars are not at Tim Murphys avail are they?
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.
(this is a repeat, since I mistakenly posted it on another thread. Apologies)
I’m afraid our hard-earned tax dollars are fully accessible by Mr. Murphy, Doug.
And they will go to the best lawyers in the land in an effort to squelch this abomination as soon as possible.
Thanks for the encouragement…think Im going to go get a case of beer and Im not even a drinker.
This is either me being technically inept, or something that requires the music from Jaws…
I did a search on the National Post (I’m now a subscriber) and this is what I got:
Results for your search for “andrew coynt” for the last 7 days from the National Post.
0 to 0 results out of 0
0 to 0 results out of 0
Does he still have a job?
Um, Candace… it’s Andrew COYNE, not COYNT.
More importantly, I’m not sure if the Post has ever archived opinion pieces. They archive news pieces.
Or am I mistaken? I’d happily be corrected.
I think you folks are mistaken – as I pointed out on the other thread, I don’t think Coynes posts have been altered.
You’re right, I’m technically inept.
Kate, his posts have been altered as noticed by Robot Guy as well. The “smoking tape” used to have a variety of “upperdates” that are gone, and the original post used to require a fair bit of scrolling to even reach the comments.
Coyne and his columns are still up on NP site. Including the May 20th one with the discussion of the Grewal/Murphy tape.
If Coyne is being sued the Libranos are not being very careful. The Aspers have the ability to hurt them. A lot.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would bet that AC will keep any anti-Liberal remarks under the (huge legal) umbrella of the National Post. And if a blogger can be held responsible for the comments contained therein, we all need to be respectful of our hosts’ liabilities.
Can a blog host actually be held responsible, CANDACE? Any legal eagles in the house?…
If so, it seems to follow that some stranger could walk off the street onto your lawn, yell inflammatory racist comments or slander and then disappear, leaving you responsible in their wake.
I wonder if that’s why Coyne shitcanned the comments on his blog. Mind you, I don’t blame him; the conversation got pretty ridiculous in there last night. And I must accept some responsibility for that myself. It’s a shame because some of the best conversations that could be found online were on his site. Hopefully he’ll be able to bring the comments feature back with some kind of a secure sign in feature.
Clearthinker, I have no idea if blogsites are liable for the comments section. I don’t have my own site nor am I a lawyer.
Candace, I think you need to click under archives to get back to the stuff you remember. There were two posts and you probably are thinking of the first one which aged into the archives. Here’s a short cut:
http://tinyurl.com/7v2o8
Has Asper got his 100M yet or is that also in the budget? Please bring back Conrad, lol.
If the NP isn’t onside on AC’s piece I would be surprised. It would be nice to see the “Letters to the Editor” that are not printed, I’ve always wondered…
Just to raise another aspect of “canadian identity”: “T�h�ran demande au Canada d’�tre patient” (AP, PC, May 21). One expects M. Pettigrew to respond with a “further tightening our policy of controlled engagement.” And Tehran will request greater patience. And M. Pettigrew will?…And Zahra Kazemi will remain dead, and no believable explanation will come from Tehran. And the Government of Canada will?…while a Canadian ambassador remains in Tehran in the hope of some eventual commercial benefit which in any event can only be tiny in terms of Canadian foreign trade. One is ever more proud to be a citizen of what country?
Mark
Ottawa
I’ll say one thing, folks, the shutdown of AC’s blog comments board has put a severe chill on the LIbrano blogosphere.
No more animated righteous indignation, venting frowned upon, only narrowly focussed hyper-polite chit chat if you must. I guess everyone among us is suitably chastened, even if we were not in attendance at last night’s supposedly ugly slugfest.
I look forward to a little balance myself. Not the extreme free for all nasties where people get carried away — just a spirited exchange of ideas. At least then a few of us were driven to get off our duffs and get out to volunteer in our local cridings, send letters to the editor, to our MPs, to our friends, etc.
Polite is nice, to be sure. And civility is always preferable to vitriol. But these crazy, upsetting times do not call for politeness. As a nation, we have been polite and accepting for too long, and the Liberals count on us settling down and going back to sleep.
I respectfully suggest that we must find a way to stay angry and motivated. Otherwise we’re just like sheep going to the slaughter.
Definitley because of ridiculous Clark thread. Real Shame.
I am sure if there were legal pressures AC would find a way to hint or discuss it.
We have to find a way around it, Stephen.
It would be a real shame if, without even knowing it, Clark managed to finally accomplish what he always seemed to be trying to do, ie: keep the conservative party fractured and useless.
This slap down of A. Coyne is just another way of the Liberal/ND outfit to stop the truth from reaching the Canadian people. Any outfit that will go to the illigal lengths this outfit has gone to, to stay in power, has A LOT to answer for and they are willing to be RUTHLESS to keep all that slime under the scum at the top. If they are not made to fess-up then all of us lose everything – without Freedom there is nothing worth anything.
nice history lesson, kate. too bad you got your facts wrong. canada was never invaded? hmmm. seems to me that the AMERICANS invaded during the war of 1812 or the napoleonic wars, whatever you care to call it. got their asses spanked and were sent packing by some third rate colonial troops (the first rate troops were taking care of the french). as well, there was a brief invasion during the american revolutionary war. for some reason the revolting colonists thought that the quebecois were also interested in republicanism. disinterested locals, the difficulty of fighting, long supply lines, etc, encouraged the americans to take their fight back to the lower colonies. now that short history lesson may not explain canadian identity, or lack there of, but it certainly explains why we are canadians and not americans (at least some of us anyway). which would have been the case if the american invasions had been successful. now, here;s a suggestion. if you want to use history to buttress your points, an excellent idea in my book, try:
1)reading some history before you open your mouth.
2)don’t leave out inconvenient facts, it lowers peoples estimation of you if they do know something about the subject.
* note that there were absolutely no four letter words in the above response.
I know what you mean, Jema54, but the case against Coyne seems so slim it is just a nuisance suit.
Murphy never denied that it was his voice, and we have all haerd the tape and read the transcript. Grewal will likely swear his word against Murphy’s. There is precedent in the blown Inky Mark and the successful Stronach manoeuvres. There doesn’t seem to be much left to the imagination, or much of a leg to stand on, does there?
There was one dude, I believe Steve K. was his atavar, who was suggesting some kind of ridiculous homosexual conspiracy theory involving Joe Clark. No one really took him seriously, but no one attacked him either, nor should they have. The shit hit the fan an hour or so later when the discussion had already moved on to other, more intelligent things. A couple individuals logged in and started chastising us for the Clark thread, which most of us never even took seriously (except for Steve K.). Well, a couple of us, myself included, gave it back, not appreciating the self-righteous, indignent comments directed toward us by some fly-by-night posters who were neither contributing to or even properly following the conversation. Those later exchanges made the whole thing seem way worse than it was, and blew it all out of proportion.
Angus:
Thanks for the history lesson.
I believe Kate was referring to modern day Canada (post 1867), not the colonies. With that in mind, her statement still holds true:
“I think that fact alone explains the national angst about “Canadian identity” more than any other. We don’t know how to fight, truly fight for what should be our inalienable rights.”
Canada as a sovereign nation has never been invaded.
* note that there were absolutely no four letter words in the above response, either.
Maybe a few western lawyers I know, and who I see sometimes on these blogs, should band together and test this in court, provided any ‘authority’ or Liberal lawyer actually does file a suit against *any* blogger for linking to Captain Eds. 100 upset Alberta lawyers would scare the hell out of anyone.
Hmm, and here’s one more inquiry the CPC could launch when they get a minority. An inquiry into the MSM in Canada and their connections to the ‘left’. I’m sure the Bloc would support them so they could do it as a minority government.
BTW, Angry wasn’t scared off. And I don’t think sda was either.
Finally, no-one can sue you for publishing an ‘opinion’ anyway can they? I guess they could sue you but I don’t think they would be successful. We are entitled to our opinions aren’t we?
Angus, while you may be factually correct about invasions in the 1800’s, no one in Canada has had to defend Canadian soil since 1812. That’s almost 200 years, and there have been many wars since then.
We haven’t had to fight for what we believe in. We have fought to help others regain or retain their native lands.
There’s a big difference IMO.
Angus, Canada was not even a country until 1867. The War of 1812 is hardly a galvanizing moment in history in which we “all became Canadian”. The fact is, Canada never had to repel an invasion since we became a unified country. Not only that, but any military conquests we did acheive tend to be burried under a mountain of liberal nonsense. See the new Canadian War Museum for exhibit A. Nothing Kate said was incorrect.
from dictionary.com
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, � 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: libel
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: -beled also -belled; -bel�ing also -bel�ling
1 : to make or publish a libel against : to hurt the reputation of by libel
2 : to proceed against in law by filing a libel (as against a ship or goods)
Perhaps AC’s interpretations of the taped conversation is what got Mr. Murphy bugged? And the leg he may use to stand on?
CANDACE: How can it be libel if it what he said is the unvarnished truth?
I seem to recall a centennial celebration in 1967.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe the Americans invaded British soil in 1812.
Oddly enough, I have never heard two Brits discuss “British Identity”.
People should apply a bit of perspective to these events. I said last night that the threat of lawsuit from Murphy is a shot across Asper’s bow; we’ll see if he alters course. I stand by this view.
Mr. Coyne’s blog is entirely different. He has built a reputation; a *solid* one at that, through objectivity and a sense of balance. As such, any content on his site (including commentary) reflects upon that reputation.
The discussion on Clark, IMO, was *not* inflammetory or reflective of an intolerant mindset. It was, however, borne upon premises that were not within the public domain or readily verifyable. For right or wrong, AC has a higher standard to uphold being a recognizeable and syndicated journalist. A higher standard not felt by the general blogosphere, our host here included. (Please don’t take that as a put down Kate. I’m a fellow Saskatchewanian who enjoys your thoughts and respects your work)
Then again, maybe Mr. Apers’ choke chain has been given a yank and AC has been reigned in. Like I said last night, *nothing* would surprise me in today’s political context.
Good point, KATE.
In fact, has any nation on earth ever done as much useless, self-congratulatory navel gazing as this one in the last 30-40 years?
Kate, you queried whether anyone could point to an offensive passage…
I take Coyne at his word; the comments did in no wise support the advancement of conservatice ideals. Still, if one were to speculate regarding the column, there is a passage that one might see as a trigger, viz., that adverting to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
Simply put, if one examines cases on the subject of defamation law, there appears to be greatest sensitivity – and thus the highest awards in monetary damages – where a member of the legal profession is the plaintiff. Stated otherwise, since every lawyer is an officer of the court, any imputed wrongdoing – if that allegation is false – is perceived as causing the greatest amount of character damage.
And to think that I met Tim Murphy when he had hair and was a great deal more idealistic…
A. COOPER:
You may be right, though one of your statements gave me pause to reflect:
“…It was, however, borne upon premises that were not within the public domain or readily verifyable. For right or wrong, AC has a higher standard to uphold being a recognizeable and syndicated journalist.”…
If Andrew does this, and I believe he does — then he is one of a very few in the media that hold themselves to that standard.
“Stated otherwise, since every lawyer is an officer of the court, any imputed wrongdoing – if that allegation is false – is perceived as causing the greatest amount of character damage.”
I see your point, MGK. Deadly stuff indeed, and I would be more than willing to accept that they are due that consideration if they are proven innocent. Conversely, if they choose to hide behind their “reputation and perceived character” then they should pay a much higher price than the rest of us if they are ultimately found guilty.
AC under threat? UPDATED – YES! (but he has surfaced)
May 22 – 04:20 – Commenter Candace left a note that comments at Andrew Coyne’s blog are gone – and I mean all of them seemingly on all posts, past and current. I’m trying to find out if there is…
Clearthinker:
A civil suit, in this case relating to defamation, is qualitatively different from the criminal process.
In your hypothetical, the fact that one might be a lawyer would certainly be a matter that would be taken into account at any sentencing.
“If Andrew does this, and I believe he does — then he is one of a very few in the media that hold themselves to that standard.” –clearthinker
No argument from me Clear. Woodward and Bernstein have been replaced by Gidget Taber and Puff Duffy.
Well, there _are_ the american blogs, such as Captain’s Quarters. Mr. Murphy’s reach doesn’t extend that far.
If someone has a full copy of the transcript, perhaps Pajamas Media will be interested in posting it.
If a blogger wants to join: join@pajamasmedia.com
Interview on what Pajamas Media is: Link…
Roger L. Simon (one of the Pajamas Media instigators) has been posting some docs relating to the UN oil-for-food scandal.
“We don’t know how to fight, truly fight for what should be our inalienable rights.”
Spot on Kate. I’ll add that it seems we don’t know what happens if we don’t fight for our inalienable rights.
BTW has anyone read the latest Western Standard (with the China cover story)?
Thanks for the clarification, MGK. I see how that may be an issue.
I guess what I’m really annoyed about is that we can’t seem to exert the same sort of leverage on dear Mr. Murphy.
A. COOPER: LOL… You got that right, my friend.
In the U.S., I believe, persons who qualify as “public figures” cannot sue for liable even if they can show something printed about them is wrong, unless they can show that the person who published the statement knew it was a lie, or at least, made the inaccurate statment recklessly and with malicious intent.
Since this is very difficult to prove almost no public figure sues for liable in the U.S.
In Canada the only thing a publicly figure has to show is that the statement is wrong to succeed in a libel action.
The U.S. rule is, I believe, judge-made law, founded on the principles that freedom of speech and the need to ensure untrammeled discussion concerning persons active in politics requires a hobbled libel law. It will probably be 50 years before we reach the same point since our supreme court is more interested in advancing the interest of people they consider to be the downtrodden,
hmmm 1812…..
Well everybody is a little correct. Yes it was an invasion of British Soil, ostensibly as an american defence of British harassment of american shipping.
The americans burned York (now Toronto) and the British burned Washington…little known fact that is why the white house is white.
Brock did a wonderful defence against the US invasion at Niagara Falls but was helped by two factors
1) Only half the Us regulars could make it across when the paddles for all of the boats went across in first wave
2) The US militia refused to cross the border, as was the Militia’s right.
Now these battles did form some of the conciousness of the early “Canadians” who 55 years later formed a country. One of the reasons for forming a common union was the fear of this large Union Army left over after the civil war and the memories of the previous invasion.
This fear of American expansion also drove McDonald to build the railway, figuring if “Canada” didnt get there first then the Americans would.
There was a US election slogan of 54 40 or fight where the Amercan wanted the border at 54 degrees and 40 minutes….
Kates point is that really there has been nothing on the scale of the US civil war or having our borders violated on a large scale. Canadians, have been blessed by lots of ocean and lots of geography and a very powerful neighbour who saw our security as their security….oh and a former colonial master (Britain) who saw our security as their security, if only as a supply of resources.
We have had it pretty easy quite frankly, only having to battle black flies, winter and our own self doubt….