Oh Damian, RW is gonna sue your ass now. You pointed out how stupid he is.
Posted at 2008-04-09 05:06:48 [PermaLink]Warman's legal activities have to be expensive, even when covered pro bono. Can Mr. Warman spell "tax audit"?
Posted at 2008-04-09 05:16:13 [PermaLink]Damian:
You're the lawyer--do you think that it's a free speech issue when people accuse others publicly of wrongdoing, without proof? What about accusing an agency (CHEC) and its officers of theft of communications (no legal action on that front as yet)?
I hope people at least read the Statement of Claim before jumping into the fray thinking this is a SLAPP suit:
[External Link]
That's "CHRC," and no funny jokes, please.
Posted at 2008-04-09 13:15:37 [PermaLink]"What about accusing an agency (CHEC) and its officers of theft of communications"
Using someone's WiFi without permission isn't theft?
Well, Dawg, you might as well denounce the Star, too:
"During the hearings, Dean Steacy, an investigator for the human rights commission, admitted using the pseudonym "Jadewarr" to post messages on white supremacist websites.
Following a subpoena, Bell Canada revealed that one 'Jadewarr' post in a chat room had originated from an Internet address belonging to Nelly Hechme, a woman who lives in an Ottawa high-rise close to the commission's office.
Hechme, 26, who apparently had an unsecured wireless Internet link, was reportedly dumbfounded by the use of her account and denied any connection to Steacy or the rights agency."
[External Link]
Strange isn't it that the amount of the lawsuits is limited to $50,000 for each defendant. Coincidentally, this is the threshold for which discovery applies.
It's Paypal time folks.
Bruce:
Of course stealing wi-fi is theft.
You're another lawyer. So you tell me: is this allegation against Steacy proven? Or merely alleged?
You tell me, Dawg. It seems the Star is doing
pretty much what you criticize a *blog* for doing.
Do all reports of wrongdoing by public officials need to be proven in court before they appear in print? The evidence, as laid out by the Star, is pretty compelling. Is Steacy now claiming he had permission to use the WiFi?
In the U.S., Steacy would be considered a public official, and, absent proof of actual malice (NYT v. Sullivan), a defamation suit by him would almost certainly fail. In Canada the laws are different, but the evidence laid out by the Star is pretty damning.
Dawg: We'll find out soon enough I believe as I've read the Privacy Commissioner is investigating. [External Link]
The facts that came out in the recent hearing are (just from my memory) are:
Steacy (and possibly other CHRC staffers) posted using the pseudonym Jadewarr.
Bell traced the IP address used by at least one posting by Jadewarr.
That IP address was used by Ms. Hechme who had an unsecured wireless connection and lived close by to the CHRC office.
Ms. Hechme has no relationship either with Lemire's site nor the CHRC.
Alleged only because it hasn't been proven yet, however this is a very serious matter.
Perhaps Ms. Hechme will take a page from Warman's playbook and start suing. She certainly has reason to do so based upon what we know.
Bruce:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. The CHRC-haters are claiming that "jadewarr" was used by several people--they even alleged that Warman used it, if I recall correctly. The Star doesn't single out Steacy.
John B.:
Bell reported only that a "jadewarr" posting for the time indicated by Lemire had emanated from this innocent person's IP address. I'm no techie, but is it not possible that the timestamp was altered? On Blogger, I can change the time of a post to anything I want.
This fellow seems to know more than I on the technical side of things:
[External Link]
Incidentally, the CHRC is about a quarter-mile from the innocent person's address, not "a block away," as Lemire (and Steyn) claimed.
It seems that Steyn is no longer into fact-checking. He lets Marc Lemire do it.
"Incidentally, the CHRC is about a quarter-mile from the innocent person's address, not "a block away"
OK - it's two blocks away according to Google Earth. I'm pleasantly surprised you accept that Hechme is innocent until proven so. That's how the HRCs work isn't it?
"I had been doing research for a sidebar about Bill C-10 funding restrictions and the history of media censorship in Canada. What I found was a disturbing pattern -- an illiberal crusade on the part of minorities to shut out unpleasant ideas using Canadian law."
Surprise. Surprise. :)
Here is a newswire update on the MacLean's magazine encounter with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Apparently they don't want to pick a fight with someone having the resources to fight back. I think it's called bullying:
"Commission Issues Statement on Decision in Maclean's Cases"
"TORONTO, April 9 /CNW/ - The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided
not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean's magazine related to its
publication of an article "The future belongs to Islam." The complainants
alleged that the content of the article and Maclean's refusal to provide space
for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the
complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal
of Ontario."
Like a bully, they can't help but throw a taunt at MacLean's anyway. Hey, we won't fight you, but you're guilty anyway:
"While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a
functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic
portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community
in the media, such as the Maclean's article and others like them,"
What race are Muslims again? Barbara Hall must have pissed her knickers laughing when she wrote that "freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a
functioning democracy".
"Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada," commented
Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall."
Debate of course is the last thing such people want.
[External Link]
John B.
If you check Mapquest and do an "as the crow flies" with their scale of meters, you'll see that the distance is 300m+. The separation is not merely over an "open field," as Lemire asserts, but through several office buildings as well. Residential wi-fi has an approximate outdoor range of 90m.
The distance issue is interesting. A typical WiFi has a range of something less than 200 feet, so even at two blocks the WiFi would ordinarily be well out of range.
Posted at 2008-04-09 15:35:29 [PermaLink]Dawg:
I don't think anyone believes they accessed Ms. Hechme's internet account from CHRC offices (assuming they are guilty). Most likely they were war driving or sitting in a nearby cafe after finding an unsecured account.
Ah. That's not what Lemire says, but that must be what Steyn meant. Oh, wait, Dean Steacy is legally blind. Whoops.
Posted at 2008-04-09 16:14:47 [PermaLink]I'm sure Mr. Steacy could find Mr. You Know Who to drive the car. Can't mention his name, lawsuits and all that.
Posted at 2008-04-09 16:57:30 [PermaLink]I was thinking of all the specialized equipment he would need as a blind person. It's not exactly portable. Even in the realm of speculation, I think it would be wise to let this supposition drop.
But Steyn states it as a plain fact. And Maclean's published it. I hope Steacy goes after them for what is obviously a serious libel. Unless you think it's alright to accuse people publicly of committing criminal acts, without any evidence.
"Even in the realm of speculation, I think it would be wise to let this supposition drop."
If I'm understanding correctly, these facts are not disputed: that Steacy posts inflammatory comments on white supremacist websites under the name "Jadewarr", and that someone posted an inflammatory comment on a white supremacist website under the name "Jadewarr" from Nelly Hechme's IP address.
Out of curiosity, what "speculation" are you proposing as a more parsimonious explanation?
In any case, reading through the Statement of Claim you've helpfully linked, I see that Warman's grievances include Freedominion's calling him an unethical lawyer, Kathy Shaidle's wondering if the CJC will regret having given Warman an award, Levant calling him "a very angry man" and I have no idea what Kate McMillan is even supposed to have done. Does this seem like a reasonable place to draw the line as to what is and isn't acceptable free speech?
Otter:
As I've noted here and elsewhere, the "jadewarr" appellation has been allegedly used by others as well; the matter of the timestamp of the "jadewarr" posting in this instance has been questioned (if only by me); the fact that the address is a dynmaic one is of some relevance; and the original claim (by Marc Lemire) that the ei-fi hijacking took place from the CHRC by a CHRC staffer has had a lot of doubt cast upon it. Hence to flatly accuse Dean Steacy of criminal behaviour is actionable. I hopes he sues Steyn's ass, to be quite blunt.
The Warman Statement of Claim is somewhat less stark, admittedly. One does have to take the entirety of it, though, not cherry-pick pick bits and pieces. He may not have been accused of criminal behaviour, but the accusations, taken together, certainly lower his esteem in the community, and if they cannot be proven, then I think he will succeed in his action.
You mention Kate, whose sin, as I read it, is allowing her site to be used by someone who made broad and unproved claims against Warman, and who only later realized her error and threw in the word "alleged" here and there. The question here is, Should Kate be held liable for what someone else posts on her blog?
I can think of a lot of arguments pro and con, and, from my legally untutored standpoint, I tend to favour the con, if you can believe it, but I do not know the jurisprudence on this. I tend to think it's a bit like lending someone your car who subsequently commits a hit-and-run; however, if you know that the person in question is a careless driver, you might share in the liability. I dunno, and I hope lawyers answer Damian's query in his latest post.
"One does have to take the entirety of it, though, not cherry-pick pick bits and pieces."
First, I'm not cherry-picking. You've gone through pages of complaints and picked out one of the only things that sounds even vaguely like genuine libel even under Canadian law. I could pull out 50 absurdities.
Second, I don't see why we must "take the entirety of it". This isn't some random offended citizen. It's the guy who presumes to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech in Canada, the guy who shapes laws, plants evidence (and lies about it), files complaints and then has them prosecuted by his lackeys. If he's claiming that it's illegal to call him "an unethical lawyer", that strikes me as noteworthy for any Canadian who might ever desire to use such language in public.
Well, if Warman loses he can always throw a pie at them...
Posted at 2008-04-10 13:15:30 [PermaLink]