Update: Lawsuit threatened against Blazingcatfur by Warren Kinsella
Warren Kinsella to me
show details 4:52 PM (1 hour ago) Reply
Warren Kinsella to me
show details 4:52 PM (1 hour ago) Reply
As you wish. We'll use Ezra's address for service, which we already have.
Sincerely,
Warren Kinsella
www.warrenkinsella.com
wkinsella@hotmail.com
I received the following e-mail from Warren Kinsella, or at least someone purporting to be Warren K, threatening me with legal action if I did not amend this post, "Are Liberals the New Nazis?", in which he claims I am "...calling him a Nazi". Is the original e-mail a hoax? We shall see.
Following is the e-mail I received threatening "Action":
Warren Kinsella to me
show details 10:40 AM (3 hours ago) Reply
I am fair game for all kinds of criticism, but calling me a Nazi is actionable.
Please make the necessary changes, or I'll be forced to tell my legal counsel to take action.
Sincerely,
Warren Kinsella
www.warrenkinsella.com
wkinsella@hotmail.com
This is RICH. My original post (below) mocks the simpleton's logic employed by Kinsella and his "Winged Gasbags" demonstrating the weakness of their thinking and the fallacy of their primary argument against supporters of M-446, those he derisively refers to as "Freespeechers".
The low tactic of "Guilt by Association" employed by Kinsella in his feeble attempt to link MP Keith Martin author of M-446 and his supporters to Neo-Nazi Boobs is indicative of someone who knows they have lost the war. The attempt, (if genuine), to intimidate me into silence by the threat of legal action does nothing to alter my opinion of Warren K & his dimwitted brethren.
Unlike others I believe in fairness, as I stated the e-mail may be a hoax by someone other than Warren K. I am willing to give Warren the benefit of the doubt, if he confirms that the original e-mail is indeed a hoax perpetrated against him I will take him at his word and will indicate so publicly on this blog.(NB. hitting reply does in fact address itself to Warren K's public e-mail addy, of which I am familiar from prior correspondence).
If indeed you are the author of the above e-mail Mr. Kinsella I am instructed by counsel that should you decide to pursue a complaint you are to contact my solicitor directly - Mr. Ezra Levant.
I have reprinted the entire original post below so that YOU - The Jury of Public Opinion - may decide, Free Speech is precious so have at it!
Employing the Liberal logic being used against M-446 I surmise that Liberals are the new Nazis
The Liberals like the colour red
The Liberals like the colour red
The Nazis liked the colour red
Liberal ideology is based on a cult of personality
Nazi ideology is based on a cult of personality
The Nazis opposed Free Speech
The Liberals oppose Free Speech
Coincidence? Hardly
48 comments:
Man, if Warren's skin were any thinner, he'd have to have himself vacuum-sealed every morning.
Agreed, we shall just how stretched both his skin and his arguments are shortly.
Mmmmm! Popcorn!
Ah Dawg, how nice of you to visit. Stick around for the show.
Actually BCF, you are up shits creek on this one. This is defamation of character via secondary inference, which is completely actionable in a Civil Court of Law here in Ontario.
Under Ontario's Defamation Laws, the onus is on you to prove that Defamation didn't occur, and if you can't prove it, then it is up to you to prove that damages didn't occur. Unfortunately Ontario's Slander/Libel/Defamation Laws are still based on the old British Laws and there are very draconian, in fact most of Canada's Slander/Libel/Defamation are still based on these old British Tort Laws.
Also, defending yourself against this type of law suit is very costly, and even if you win, you are only likely to recover between 25% too 40% of legal costs.
Just some free advice, do with it as you wish, you might also want to get in contact with Mark Francis of Section 15 (blogger) and ask him about his legal headaches in regards to Slander/Libel/Defamation law. But as I said, this is just my advice and option, do with it as you wish.
Rumour has it Ed Zundel will issue a press release this week endorsing r-446, saying if it had been around when he was younger it would have been his "get out of jail" card.
Thank you for your advice Zorpheus. I am confident in the advice of my council.
Ha Ha BCL - still at it I see. I concur with Alan Borovoy. Zundel should not have been prosecuted no matter how odious his views. Free speech is a God given right, not bestowed on us PET, just so you're clear;)
Hmm, I guess Kinsella's enemies will have to be more clever and inventive in attacking him.
Never attack unless you have first adequately defended yourself against your enemy's ability to counter-attack.
Myself, I think the e-mail is a hoax.
Who knows? Even if Kinsella IS behind it, it STILL might be bluster & BS.
I offered Warren a clarification on my side. But that is all I am willing to do. I am not willing to modify the original contents of my post, as it is clearly satirical.
I think it's fair to give clarification that I am not calling him a Nazi, but that's about it.
Will he be satisfied with that Mike or will he go after you too? Keep me posted, thanks.
I hope he didn't cut himself with the speed that he flashed that victim card.
BCF,
I'm not dissing Ezra here, but he is hardly what I would call or consider an impartial council in this matter, but again that is my opinion (is he even a lawyer?)
I would highly recommend you seek a truly impartial legal opinion on this matter. Give my client at lawyerlocate.ca a call and they can hook you with a qualified lawyer in your area and will provide you with an initial free legal consult.
It has been my observation that Mr. Kinsella doesn't bluff on these matters, it is not in his nature and he knows the laws around Slander/Libel/Defamation very well.
Oh, by the way, I hold Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Levant in the same high regard.
You know this makes me see red, if he wrote it, he's abusing his position as a Lawyer. To run around the internet threatening people with legal action because he doesn't like what you wrote is the very farking reason we want section 13 culled from the HRC. Because of wonkers like him who use their legal training to attack people who write mere words he doesn't agree with. At the very least his attempt (If he wrote it) to silence you and force you to change the content of your words is another example of how far his socialist dogma has gone from socialist shit to hard core communist doctorine. He's become the person he accuses others of being, it appears.
I'd fire that Email off to Ezra and ask him if it can be validated to have come from Mr. Crybaby. If he sent it, than ask if you have basis to file a complaint with the Bar Society. It appears many Conservative Bloggers are being threated with legal action by Liberals, this issue shouldn't go unchallenged. I for one am disquested at what I read at his blog today, but the coward doesn't allow negative responses. Unlike Ezra and your fine self Blazing Cat you allow debate and negative rebuttal.
Section 13 is by it's very definition a communist law, to attempt to control my thoughts or to impose communist doctorine vis vie my words because my words are "likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt" is pure Nazism. Hitler used similar laws to cower his opponents and that's the sole purpose of section 13. It allows unelected, unskilled people to adjudicate hearings based on hurt feelings. It's assine and immoral and it should be illegal in a democracy.
I'm sorry some Illiberal Jews get their feelings hurt by mere words from stupid White Supremacist but it should not be a crime, a pre-crime or a case for socialist hacks who's egos are massive enought to assume they have ESP and can read my "Thoughts".
I've been reading blogs globally and Canada is being mocked and made fun of because we allow an arm of a democratic country to fine people thousands of dollars for "Hurt Feelings" and "Unpleasant Thougths". If Warman and Kinsella have ESP then they will know how much I loath and hold their ideals in contempt.
Hitler started as a socialist, the HRC has become an arm of communism to silence those they deem offensive. I find this offensive.
It's all a true Rose, he is indeed proceeding and he has threatened Mike Brock as well. We shall see how it shakes out. Thank you for your support.
Zorpheus I appreciate your counsel (heh spelled it right this time;)
We have to let this run it's course or we will all be endangered. Too much is at stake.
To run around the internet threatening people with legal action because he doesn't like what you wrote is the very farking reason we want section 13 culled from the HRC. Because of wonkers like him who use their legal training to attack people who write mere words he doesn't agree with.
While Ezra, it seems, gets a pass. And the repeal of the HRC in its entirety won't stop it.
Oh Dawg, sorry to interrupt your evident glee, but really this will prove a Tempest in a Hitler Tea-Pot;)
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV but:
Herr K's is pictured under "Liberals oppose free speech" While your real Nazis are pictured under, well Nazi something or other.
Big difference, and since your post title is asking a question and not making a statement (I know it's an old trick with language but hey) I doubt he has anything to stand on.
Another small thing for Herr K. What exactly is the definition of a Nazi,and what makes being called one an actionable act?
Good points all. Anon.
Anon,
Big difference, and since your post title is asking a question and not making a statement (I know it's an old trick with language but hey) I doubt he has anything to stand on.
Yes, that is a viable defence,... in the USA under their laws, but this is Canada and that defence doesn't fly under Defamation Tort Law here in Ontario. Kinsella will most likely state his legal position that his character was defamed via secondary inference.
Another small thing for Herr K. What exactly is the definition of a Nazi,and what makes being called one an actionable act?
Excellent question, and one that Mr. Kinsella isn't required to answer in a legal case of Defamation, but BCF would be required to define it and explain why it is not defamatory. Again it is reverse onus here, Kinsella isn't required to prove anything. In defamation law the deck is stacked in favour of the plaintiff not the defendant.
Like I said BCF, the laws for defamation here in Canada, especial in BC and Ontario are stacked in Kinsella's favour.
Principle is a fine thing to stand on, but it can be a costly stand to take. Seriously give my friends at Lawyerlocate.ca a call in the morning, a free second legal opinion will only cost you some of your time and may just save you a world of grief. You might also might want to talk to few other bloggers who have crossed swords with Kinsella before, I think Ottawa Watcher (blogging tory) had a legal run in with Warren a few years ago.
Oh BTW BCF, I'm am the last person in the Blogosphere to nit pick someone about their spell, it would be very hypocritical of me to do so,... especially if I could spell it right ;-)
Nazis were national socialists does Kinsella want socialism throughout the nation?
Is he willing to take away my right as an individual to free speech like a Nazi would?
Kinsella threatens like 1/2the blogosphere. If he wins all the cases he'll be rich, rich, rich,
Like his libs never called this Reformer a Nazi? I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but that was just fun.
And libs should just sue everyone else for equality.
I think he should move to Minsk to enjoy real socialism, and a real lack of free speech!
The thug.
Great post!
Kinsella listens to Bad Religion and he forces his children to listen to them as well. Thats a hate crime in itself!
Darling...Everybody knows Liberal is the new Nazi.
You rock BCT!(but not like Bad Religion)
Dave in Guelph
Zorpheous, Herr K has to prove he was actually defamed and that it has caused some type of REAL measurable damage. Hurt feelings belong in the HRC not in our courts =)
I doubt many would really think Herr K actually is a card carrying paid up member of the NSDAP because of what BCF posted so it would be all uphill from the start.
Warren damaged his own reputation by trying to defend the indefensible on free speech, and by threatening all sorts of people with legal action. The above post will not do anything to WK other than increase the hits to his blog to numbers he has not seen in years.
Trouble with leftoids, er, well one of their problems, is that their definition of Nazi takes in about 80% of the population. Harper is one, Steyn and Levant are, and both you and I definitely are, Fur!
I was in UK during Thatcher’s time, when every bacterially-enhanced cappuccinoid was calling her one. This elicited angry Letters to the Editor from elderly Jews and Poles, folk who knew the REAL meaning of the word, decrying the way the word had lost its meaning through overuse, thereby belittling their experiences.
I see that Kinsella was happy to toss whoever approved of Keith Martin’s motion into the same bed as Stormfront and Zundel. I didn’t particularly like that either, but I didn’t reach for my lawyer. He should cultivate a bit more of that white skin of which he is so inordinately ashamed.
Well you only said out loud what most of us are thinking. What is it with the liberals and their need to suppress freedom of speech? With Jason telling us what rights Trudeau gave us on his blog, thier mindset is truly creepy.
I wouldn't worry about it. Warman, I mean Warren, has no problems with linking Keith Martin to stormfront, or anyone else who is for freedom of speech.
He is having a temper tantrum because like the other vermin, he realizes he is going down with the ship.
Apparently it is ok for lefties to call people to the right of them, Nazis, fascists and Hilters, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they skwark.
Kinsella's nerve is galling to the most extreme.
Blazing Cat Fur, next time you speak with Ezra, would you please advise him that I might be a target of Kinsella as well?
Will do Sentinel. My recommendation is to e-mail him directly however.
BCF, it is clear in your photo essay that you are calling the Liberals (and not WK) the "New Nazis".
And speaking as a former teenage pro-life activist, it never occured to me to sue Rent-A-Mob for chanting "Sexist, racist, anti-gay, Hitler Youth, go away" at my friends and me for years.
It's great, though, that people are waking up to the fact that Nazi is a contraction for "National Socialism" and that Nazism was not a conservative movement; it was a left-wing movement.
Thanks for doing your bit for Freedom of Speech.
Thanks Seraph, your words of encouragement are appreciated.
Anonymous said...
Zorpheous, Herr K has to prove he was actually defamed and that it has caused some type of REAL measurable damage. Hurt feelings belong in the HRC not in our courts =)
Err, sorry Anon, that is not how it works under Ontario Defamation Tort Law, Defamation Tort Law in Ontario is based on old British common law where it is reverse onus. The defendant my prove that their statements were not defamatory. And before you go blaming the "Liberals" for this, this has been this way ever since Canada and before Canada became a nation.
Like I said ealier, most of Canada's Libel/Slander/Defamation laws are draconian. Which further drives home the point that BCF needs to seek proper and impartial legal council in this matter.
Oh I suggest you people stop confusing the HRC and Defamation Law, cause the two are not related.
"BCF, it is clear in your photo essay that you are calling the Liberals (and not WK) the "New Nazis". "
Yes, absolutely true, and it is also call Defamation via secondary inference, which is actionable under Ontario Defamation Tort laws, and there lays BCF problems
I wish Warren would just call you a "cunt" and spare the rest of us the boring gravitas that this whole topic seems to manufacture.
I think it's pretty obvious that you are a cunt; frankly, you seem kind of proud of it.
Anonymous said...
I wish Warren would just call you a "cunt" and spare the rest of us the boring gravitas that this whole topic seems to manufacture.
I think it's pretty obvious that you are a cunt; frankly, you seem kind of proud of it.
Actually, BCF would have been safer calling Mr. K a "cunt" or an asshole, since that would only have been an insult, and insults are not considered Libel/Slander and /or Defamatory under TORT Law,... now calling a woman a "Whore" is actionable under TORT Law. Like I said, our Defamation Laws are draconian.
If there is one issue that Left and Right wing bloggers should be able to come together on is forcing our leaders to reform our laws in regards to Libel/Slander and Defamation. We seriously need Anti SLAPP laws on the books. This would stop these type of legal action.
Again, I suggest BCF take read of Ottawa Watcher and Section 15 and their experiences with Defamation Law, and BCF, please call my friends and get some real independent legal council on this matter. Either that, get Ezra to put in writing that he is going to cover your legal costs. Defending a Defamation Case can cost anywhere from $50000 to $70000 in legal bills and if you win your case you only recover a maximum of 50% of costs as determined via a court schedule (which ussually means about 25% too 40% of your costs)
Zorf your advice is much appreciated. I wish to assure you that I am well looked after regarding the issues you mention.
Personally, I am as much a fan of Mr. Kinsella as I am of Ezra ;-)
Hopefully the two will beat the crap out of each other for our amusement.
I sincerely wish you all the best in matter and if you need help with the legal bills, do what Ottawa Watcher did, and put up a tip jar.
Thanks Zorph, your advice is appreciated I assure you, please do not hesitate to offer anything you may feel to be of value.
I'll take your recommendation under advisement, BCF.
I doubt, however, that WK is serious. He knows the difference between a sure win and a sure loss in court... and there's no way on earth he can make the case that anyone actually called him the N-word. In fact, the worst you called him was a "Liberal". LOL
WK is to be taken with a grain of salt. Liberals are infamous for the tactic of flippantly threatening legal action when someone makes an inconvenient point with respect to them. It doesn't matter how ludicrous their accusation is against us- they just seek to silence us via legal intimidation. It's not as if they can go around waving baseball bats at bloggers... the optics would finish them off!
Being a relative newcomer, forgive me if the following is out place.
If Zorph's comments and ostensible offers of advice are taken as a whole and weighed as to their net effect, they seem to be trying frightfully hard to re-inforce Lucy Kinsella's attempt to silence and metaphorically terrorize his critics.
That being said, am I the only one who find's Warren's post about Kate creepy?
BoomNoZoom said...
Being a relative newcomer, forgive me if the following is out place.
If Zorph's comments and ostensible offers of advice are taken as a whole and weighed as to their net effect, they seem to be trying frightfully hard to re-inforce Lucy Kinsella's attempt to silence and metaphorically terrorize his critics.
That being said, am I the only one who find's Warren's post about Kate creepy?
BoomNoZoom,
I am not defending Warren here, or even trying to measure the validity of his claims, I am merely stating the facts around Ontario's Libel/Slander and Defamation laws. I have one friend who is currently being sued in BC under these stupid freeking laws.
Unlike the USA, where it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to demonstrate that libel/slander and defamation occurred AND that that damages really did occur from such actions, it is the completely the other way around here in Canada (thanks to old British TORT laws we have)
Now there is a certain logic to these laws and it goes like this. BCF, I'm going to libel and defame your character here, just as an example, ok, so please don't sue me ;-)
Let say I say something like "BCF is a squirrel molester and supports squirrel rape" (remember people this is just an example)
BCF is offend and claims that I have Libel and defamed him/her and he/she files a case against me (we will assume BCF went through all the right of reply and exercised proper due diligence)
So I Zorpheous, get his sorry, fury tail dragged into court where it is my responsible to justify that my statements are true. BCF character is give the benefit of the doubt, and my statements are considered false until I can justify them as true. Now even if I can't justify them as true, I still get a chance to prove that no damages took place or that no "Reasonable Person" reading this assume I was speaking the truth (no harm no damages).
But wait, it still gets better, even if I can prove that BCF supports squirrel rape (we all know how those cats truly feel about squirrels, right?) Even if I have rock hard solid proof to hang The Cat, I still have to prove that my statements were not solely designed and made to damage BCF Character. Yes, you can be sued for even telling the truth, if your purpose was to specifically designed to cause damages to the persons reputation.
Like I said, most of Canada's TORT laws surrounding Libel/Slander and Defamation are draconian.
Now after all of this, BCF would still be allowed the right of reply in Court and present his/hers case, which could sink mine.
People are making huge bitching sounds about HRC, but if you really want to support free speech Canada, we need to reform it's Libel/Slander and Defamation laws and to place on the books Anti SLAPP legislation, (SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Many US States already have such laws in place to stop Libel Chill case being filed.
Anyways, I'm sure BCF is a lovely and fine upstanding Cat (Blazing fur and all) and has many squirrelly friends ;-)
nuk nuk nuk
I think James Bow did a few excellent articles on Canada's Defamation/Libel and Slander Laws back about a year ago, well worth the read, BFC you might want to fire off an email to him for his URL's on these articles.
Mouthbreathers!
;)
BCF, I'll cherry pick a few articles about our socialist friend to post on my blog as well. Unfortunately I live in Ontario, and within driving distance. But I don't settle scores through courts, I do it the old fashioned manly way!!!
Only whinny liberals run to the courts(mommies skirt). Because their not man enough to have a reasonable debate they have to hide behind a "Skirt"(court) and have them do the fighting for them! Cowards!!!!!!!!!!
For the record, I had no idea that was Kinsella in the photograph. I don't know him by sight, and the picture is not labelled. If people hadn't mentioned his name in the coments I still wouldn't know.
I would hazard a guess that most people have no clue what Warren Kinsella looks like, and since he isn't identified in the post, does this really constitute public defamation? Just wondering.
Evidently it does to WK Ellie, he has been a little tetchy of late. He knows that he has chosen the wrong side of the fence on the HRC issue.
My knowledge of the legal system is pretty limited, but I'm still not getting how this is supposed to be defamatory. The whole post is tongue-in-cheek, the picture in question is an obvious photoshop, and there's no serious suggestion Mr. Kinsella is in fact a member of a Nazi party or is a Nazi sympathizer (which HAS been said of Mr. Martin). It's clearly a political satire.
If you had posted the book cover alone, and pretended it was a real book by Kinsella that you'd found on Amazon.com or some such place, then that would be libelous. But how can someone be sued for a joke?
joke? Exactly, like that great Newfie Lady character on CBC comedy who always ends with something like. . .
Aw shucks, . I really didn*t mean that. I was just funnin* ya, that*s all.
eh? Funny how nobody says eh! eh?
Canadian high culture, dontcha know.= TG
Looks like Mr. Kinsella is taking a page from Obama. Sue often, sue everyone, sue for advantage. Political or economic. Have legions of lawyers, so you don't even have any opponents threw technicalities. Better yet shaft the tax payer.
Frankly I am tired of seeing innocents sued by professional litigants, for personnel gain by government loopholes. Suck it up sweetie & be a man. The change train is a coming your way. Move, or be run over by the free speecher’s, when this travesty becomes common knowledge with the CPC & the RCMP, which is now investigating. Now that’s real trouble. Grow some thick skin, or go play alone is my advise.
BCF up to you how which way you want to go with this. Keep Given em all hell!!!
Perhaps he wishes to be an Obama-Messiah Apostle? Whatever his motives, please include an address box for us who don't like credit cards to help you out from the haters of freedom. Mostly because of that dreaded mechanism called compound interest.
Post a Comment