The Shotgun Blog
« Screedblog | Main | While The Media Directs Our Attention To Harper's "BBQ Circuit" »
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
My Lloyd, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?
First Coyne is sued by Tim Murphy, now the Libranos are targeting David Frum;
By that definition, Canadian politics these days might seem very comical indeed. But I am counting on Americans to be less callous than the mordant Brooks--and to recognize that the events now occurring in Canada are serious, even sinister. There is though one warning I'd better immediately deliver to readers: Along with at least four other public commentators, I have recently been served with libel papers by a leading figure in this story. Because National Review is distributed in Canada, and therefore can potentially be reached by Canada's more restrictive libel law, I have to be a little circumspect in what I say here.
In any sane democratic country, a slap suit against an opinion columnist by a government operative would provoke outrage and non-stop editorials in the mainstream press. The item would be leading the newscasts, with punditry convening soberly on our TV screens. Reporter scrums would pepper government leaders to explain their actions in curtailling that most hallowed (in their eyes) of all freedoms - freedom of the press.
But of course, this is Canada - a nation of "natural governing" one-party rule in which a "living" constitution permits such limits on speech as are consistant with a Liberal Kleptocracy.
So, as the Liberals draft laws that push more and more areas of government operation outside the reach of Freedom of Information requests, weaken protections for whistleblowers, when they brazenly refuse to acknowledge the defeat of their government in non-confidence motions and ignore the Auditor Generals concerns about billions of tax dollars being funneled into unaccountable foundations - the Lloyd Robertsons and Peter Mansbridges busy themselves studiously studying Stephen Harper's facial expressions and providing Canadians "Better News Through Polling" .
They remain virtually silent on the assaults on members of their own profession - silent, because for the most part, the majority of mainstream media in Canada functions as nothing short of a communications arm of the Liberal Party. In other words, they see themselves as nothing less than an unelected arm of government.
So, when the most compelling critics of the Liberal Party they hold dear face libel actions for doing no less than speaking the truth, the majority of Canadian political punditry breathe a collective grunt of approval, and commission another poll to create new opinions to feed back to the electorate who ensure they stay near the top of all the right invitation lists.
Posted by Kate McMillan on June 15, 2005 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834237c1553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My Lloyd, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?:
» Messing With the First Amendment from Girl on the Right
David Frum of the National Review is being targeted by our Liberal government under strict Canadian libel laws - even though National Review is published in the United States! [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-06-15 2:23:27 PM
Comments
How's the Ezra Levant - Kevin Michael Grace spat going?
Posted by: Tom | 2005-06-15 1:13:02 PM
Remember when Mulroney sued the government?
Good times.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-15 1:14:05 PM
Remember when the Liberal government used the RCMP to launch a politically motivated investigation into private citizen Mulroney?
Only to present taxpayers with both bills when they turned up nothing?
Times haven't changed.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-06-15 1:45:27 PM
The Liberals have just opened up a six-pack of whup-ass. If they are stupid enough to sue someone who writes for the National Review, it's a sign that their bloat, and their sense of entitlement to not only create the truth but to enforce it, has finally reached the popping point.
The NR was less than delicate in dealing with the likes of CBS and Newsweek. It would be awfully nice to see their krieg-lights pointed directly at the Libs and their MSM propagandists. This could prove to be quite delightful.
Posted by: EBD | 2005-06-15 1:59:38 PM
Mr. Frum wrote only the truth. Can someone be sued for stating the truth? Every person in this country that pays attention to parliament knows that David Frum has only confirmed in writting what is well known. The Gomery Inquiry has confirmed most of what he says, the Police spokesman, Zachredeli (might be spelled incorrectly), the rest! How can the Liberano jackels do this, you might ask? Easy, voters with no brains and no morals back corrupt people because it is all they know. Wake Up Canada. Demand your own Freedom to speak by defending some else's. We are on the brink....Stephen Harper and his brave band of Tories is all that stands between us and Global Government a la Mo Strong. Speak -up, while you can.
Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-06-15 2:16:49 PM
The Liberals have moved far, far, beyond the parameters of an elected government. They have moved into the realm of Absolute Government.
What's the difference between them - and -the Chinese Communist Government? Don't start yelling about the 'no executions'; think about the basic infrastructures of freedom that are required by democracy and consider whether/not, and to what degree, we have lost them.
1)More and more of the financial and operative actions of governance have moved out of the control and knowledge of the electorate.
This includes:
The enormous percentage of authority wielded within non-elected positions, all appointed from the PM's office and none accountable to the public. This ratio of non-elected authority in Canada far outweights the few elected positions within the House of Commons (301).
The unelected: The Senate, judges, deputy ministers, ambassadors, key officials in the civil service, heads of all the public corporations such as Via Rail, Bell Canada..etc
2.The Liberal control of communication systems and operations and access to communication - via the censorship of the CRTC, and their control of the MSM.
3> The electorate has lost control of the taxpayer money. The Liberals have moved more and more financial and operational actions of government beyond public scrutiny: These include not only the non-elected positions but also, the fact that billions of public money have been moved beyond the control of the public, via the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is forbidden to examine a great deal of government financial transations.
And - more and more actions are being moved beyond the Freedom of Information act.
4)Dissent is stifled. The Liberals achieve this by propaganda, with their control of the MSM and their constant re-iteraction of fearful results if the population doesn't accede to their governance. The fear factors are: (1)anti-Americanism..where the propaganda says that 'you must do this, or you will become an American'..which is tantamount to 'having sinned'. Americans are imagized as Evil. (2)The other fear factor is 'breaking up the country'. The propaganda says that 'you must agree to do what we want, or, YOU will be responsible for breaking up the country.
With those two fear factors- the Liberals wield an enormous amount of propaganda power.
Dissent is stifled not only by propaganda but by open attacks. The libel suits against dissenting journalists. In China, they would be jailed; in Canada, they are equally attacked and silenced - via libel suits.
The Liberals also watch the internet. Bloggers who mock the Liberals, who use parody to attack, might be sent an email from the Party to 'take down your blog or we will be forced to sue'.
Now- in the above post, just substitute the word 'Chinese Communist Gov't' for 'Liberal'...and don't you think we ought to be worried about what is going on in Canada?
Posted by: ET | 2005-06-15 2:40:52 PM
I wonder what might happen if they called an election and nobody came? It's starting to look like a distinct possibility to me.
The reason?
There's no point in making the effort.
Posted by: Jack | 2005-06-15 2:50:24 PM
Re: "Mr. Frum wrote only the truth. Can someone be sued for stating the truth?"
Perhaps he can't afford to pay for an adequate defence, considering who'd be suing him. Or perhaps he's just not interested in taking on all that hassle.
I'm sure he's more attached to the US now, and is probably thinking like, "Is Canada worth all this hassle? ... Naaahhhh..."
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-15 2:55:11 PM
Frum and the Liberals deserve each other...
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-06-15 3:34:29 PM
How come a "hermit" has a computer?
That doesn't make any sense!
Is he a crab?
Does he have crabs?
Is he living in a common-law marriage with Osama bin Laden and his lesbi-aunt in a cave in the Hindu Kush?
What's his hidden agenda?
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-15 3:39:30 PM
A Hermit: "Frum and the Liberals deserve each other..."
I find this comment extremely homophobic!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-15 3:40:35 PM
We do need to take forceful action. Blogs are OK but something more is urgently needed.
I suggest a walking arm to the free press. We should take example of some other countries where citizens decide to take to the streets. We need to get out of our comfort zone.
Let us pray then give legs to our prayers.
Posted by: rémi houle | 2005-06-15 3:43:35 PM
One of the lesser known facts of Canadian libel laws is that you can lose even when it's proven that your information was truthful. There was a case some years ago in which a reporter (?) mentioned the past criminal conviction of some individual, was sued, and found at fault, because it was found that the information wasn't relevant and shouldnt' have been published.
Believe it or not.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-06-15 4:16:34 PM
Hermit oh Hermit please explain how Mr. Frum and the liberals deserve each other. Do you have a personal feud or what?
Posted by: circe | 2005-06-15 4:43:45 PM
A Hermit: "Frum and the Liberals deserve each other..."
Mr. Hermit,
As a lawyer, it is my duty to inform you that your comment libeled both Mr. Frum and my party.
Your attorney will be hearing from my solicitor.
Yours, etc., etc.
Posted by: Paul Martin | 2005-06-15 4:52:14 PM
Tom: "How's the Ezra Levant - Kevin Michael Grace spat going?"
What's that about?
Posted by: Belinda Stronach | 2005-06-15 4:54:00 PM
[QUOTE] ... the Lloyd Robertsons and Peter Mansbridges busy themselves studiously studying Stephen Harper's facial expressions and providing Canadians "Better News Through Polling"[UNQUOTE]
Indeed.
As ET pointed out they are motivated by anti-Americanism and fear of the country breaking up, which is just another kind of anti-Americanism. The people who are anti-American are fearful ... of not being able to compete. They're afraid of being exposed as a loser who can't hack it. Or they think that they're the cat's ass, but the rest of us are a bunch of losers. They actually think that freedom and competition mean that most people end up as losers. If they could fight back their panic and look at it objectively they would see that most people are winners. How else could the disposable income - after health insurance - in the poorest US state be higher than in Ontario? If the competitive environment in the US is allegedly so hard on losers, why is the immigration flow overwhelming from Canada to the US and not the other way around? And the ratio would be even higher if it wasn't relatively hard to get a green card and so freaking easy to get into Canada.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-06-15 5:49:55 PM
No, she's not. That's Meaghan Champion Walker Williams, serial internet blog wannabe activist.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-06-15 5:52:53 PM
Control
Of course, society will still have ‘values,’ but they will no longer be set in the context of ‘higher values.’ And without that framework we are faced with a new possibility – of refashioning the human race to our own design. Having seen through the old values, we will simply put new values in their place.
This is the subject of Lewis’ third lecture: the abolition of man. But the power to decide man’s new nature will not belong to everyone – least of all to the generations yet unborn. The Innovators who rejected the old view of traditional values will be superseded by the Conditioners who will decide for the rest of us what is to be a ‘value.’ And because they can have no values on which to base these decisions, they will simply act according to their pleasure.
We will increasingly be controlled by people who do not share the very values they can create within us and who, indeed, may hate us for still having the illusion of meaning to life, created by those implanted values. But they themselves will be ruled by base nature.
trushare.com
______________
"But they themselves will be ruled by base nature."
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-15 7:32:54 PM
The Chinese ARE censoring the Blogs:
Go to Conservative Life:
http://boards.conservativelife.com/ftpc35862.html
Is Censoring the Blogshere Next?
Plus - I read on a few blogs that they have noticed that Revenue Canada has been visiting.
It is coming. One blogger suggested that we start all of our posts with "in my humble opinion" even if it is true.
Posted by: Tracy | 2005-06-15 7:40:51 PM
"How else could the disposable income - after health insurance - in the poorest US state be higher than in Ontario?"
Citation?
Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-06-15 8:09:26 PM
Belinda Stronach and others: You can find info on the Kevin Michael Grace-Ezra Spat here:
http://www.theambler.com/jun1-15_05.htm#levantlibelchill
This shouldn't news to anyone.
Posted by: Tom | 2005-06-15 8:31:44 PM
KM Grace is vile and unwell, and transparent as drool.
Thanks for posting, "Tom".
Posted by: EBD | 2005-06-15 9:13:52 PM
Well, "EBD," I guess that solves that!
Posted by: Tom | 2005-06-15 9:19:10 PM
Brian O'Neill: Why is being Christian and iconoclast an oxymoron? Where do you think the term iconoclast comes from? See here:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9243
Posted by: Tom | 2005-06-15 9:32:45 PM
You know the comments section of this site
could be enjoyed if Brian O'Neill could shut
up for a change, it gets to be a distracion
scrolling quickly through his comments.
Same old crowd, same old words.
Posted by: cjg | 2005-06-15 10:58:06 PM
"How else could the disposable income - after health insurance - in the poorest US state be higher than in Ontario?"
Citation?
Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-06-16 9:50:31 AM
QUOTE "How else could the disposable income - after health insurance - in the poorest US state be higher than in Ontario?"
Citation? UNQUOTE
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Economic%20Performance-1OntProspEconPerf.pdf
See Economic Figure 8.
When this was being batted around in the media at the time it was released, it was mentioned that the calculation of disposable income was after the purchase of health insurance, but this doesn't seem to be stated in the report.
Even if you added the CAN$2000 or so per capita per year of public health expenditures to the disposable income of Canadians, it would still only move Ontario and Alberta up to maybe 45th in the rankings of US states. But that would be assuming that all Americans have to pay for 100% of their health insurance or doctor's fees out their pocket, which of course is untrue - most of them are covered by government or heavily subsidized by their employer. In any case, the rest of the provinces are in the poorhouse no matter how you slice or dice it.
What B.S. Canadians believe, that all their social programs are some kind of "investment" in prosperity. That's like investing in an anchor and calling it swimming lessons.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-06-16 10:37:57 AM
Thanks, that's an interesting report (on multiple levels).
Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2005-06-16 11:34:42 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.