timeimmortal

…but I will agree, to the end of my days, that he has a right to voice his opinions. And it’s good news indeed that the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with that sentiment, and will not hear an appeal to overturn a lower court’s ruling that Whatcott’s right to freedom of speech had been violated.

Whatcott’s tactics seem, to me, on the extreme side, but the fact that the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses suspended and fined him for his off-hours, anti-abortion advocacy was detestable and a violation of Whatcott’s human rights.

Nurse Bill Whatcott staged his anti-abortion protest at the clinic in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 2002, and Planned Parenthood subsequently launched a complaint against him at his professional association. Whatcott had earlier served jail time for demonstrating against an abortion clinic in Toronto.

The Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses found Whatcott guilty of professional misconduct, suspended him as a nurse and ordered him to pay C$15,000 ($15,150) in legal costs.

Whatcott argued that he had been demonstrating in his free time and that his protest was simply a case of free speech. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had also weighed in on the debate, saying that while it favored abortion rights it was concerned over attempts to squelch debate.

He tried to run for mayor here in Edmonton a while back. Got about a thousand votes, as I recall.

This just arrived in my inbox:

The result of Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge could literally make or break our fight against Section 13. It is IMPERATIVE that you email these people, and get EVERYONE YOU KNOW to do it, too!

We can put an end to Section 13 without having to wait for Parliament to wake up…but we have to act today!

I’m going to make this simple for everyone. Here is the list of emails:

THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
A. ALAN BOROVOY, GENERAL COUNSEL
e-mail: mail@ccla.org

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Jim Braunagel
e-mail: jim@bccla.org

PEN Canada
email: info@pencanada.ca

The Canadian Association of Journalists
Algonquin College
John Dickens, Executive Director

email: canadianjour@magma.ca

Your letter just has to ask them to “intervene as an interested party” in the Warman vs Lemire Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Have at it, O Reader! Freedom of expression is a cornerstone right of free societies everywhere, and this right is being eroded in Canada in part because we are letting it be eroded. Speak out about this issue, and the in no uncertain terms, or you will lose the right to do so (under the guise of it being for your own good, no less!).

I think it goes without saying that all emails sent should be polite, concise, and spell-checked thoroughly. Be nice, and be articulate, and your message will go a lot further.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Today only!

That’s right — any Mark Steyn merchandise or books purchased today will mean money donated to the legal defence funds of Canadian bloggers Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate MacMillan, Mark and Connie of Free Dominion, and National Post columnist Johnathan Kay against the lawsuit filed by Richard Warman. These men and women have been vocal, vital advocates in the cause of freedom of expression rights in Canada, and both need and deserve our support, O Reader.

Read the rest of this entry »

What happens when an ex-employee of the human rights commission (HRC) attempts to sue someone for defamation, having previously only had experience with the legal fiction of the human rights kangaroo courts in Canada (where evidence is meaningless and where a person can be found guilty if it can be established that he has, or might one day, hurt the feelings of someone else)? Especially when the someone being sued is a defamation lawyer with a “take no prisoners” attitude?

See for yourself:

I’m a defamation lawyer myself, and if I had to sum up Canadian law in four words, it would be this: get your facts straight. If your facts are correct, you have the right to your opinions on those facts — even extreme or radical opinions. So [Richard Warman]’s complaint isn’t really a lawsuit. It’s a letter to the editor.

And that’s the problem here. Warman is so used to operating in kangaroo courts — so used to human rights commissions that are run by non-lawyers, with arbitrary procedures, no fixed rules of evidence, no meaningful standards of guilt, where truth is not a defence and fair comment doesn’t exist — that he thinks he can take his Orwellian thinking out from the cloister of these star chambers into the real world. That’s my earlier point: I don’t think Warman even knows how ridiculous he looks.

The doctrine of fair comment

Warman may not share my opinion that he wastes taxpayers dollars, or acts as a censor, or that human rights commissions are a joke, etc. And his opinion might even be more reasonable than mine (it’s not). But it’s not unlawful for me to have my views. Not that my views are particularly radical — many of my exact words are echoed in the language used by PEN Canada, the CAJ, the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Noam Chomsky(!) and a dozen newspaper editorial boards across the country. That might hurt Warman’s feelings, but hurt feelings aren’t the test of defamation law.

Most everything in those blog posts was my political opinion. I did assert a few facts: I wrote that Warman encouraged some young ruffians to assault a man with a pie. That’s not a matter of fair comment, it’s either factually accurate or not. Gentle reader, click here and tell me whether that fact is true or not. I’m just not sure how Warman can deny that, but it will be interesting to watch him try.

The other factual assertion I made is that Warman himself planted anonymous posts on the internet sites that he was stalking for a complaint. Again, it’s pretty tough for Warman to take issue with that, given that both he and commission staff admit under oath that’s how they operate.

Well, Warman has tried to deny it in the past. But that didn’t really work. Here is an interesting exchange before the tribunal: at first Warman denies that he posted anonymous, provocative comments to a website he took to the commission; then, when confronted with the fact of it, he sheepishly admits to that practice. If you’re bored, you can read this lengthy affidavit by the webmaster proving that the bigoted remarks about Sen. Anne Cools were made by Warman himself. Here’s a timeline of facts related to the Anne Cools remarks.

Give ‘im hell, Ezra.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!