Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Aboriginal MP elected chair of parliamentary pro-life caucus | Main | Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Kopbusters, that's who »

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Warren Kinsella sues Ezra Levant (again)

Warren Kinsella, a campaign aide to Michael Ignatieff, is suing the former publisher of the Western Standard for libel.

Writes Levant:

Michael Ignatieff’s campaign aide, Warren Kinsella, is threatening to sue me for writing about his involvement in Adscam. You can see a copy of his libel notice here. [...]

There’s only one reason why Kinsella would sue in the face of the Gomery Commission’s findings. Well, two if you include Kinsella’s temper – he’s clearly embarrassed and angry that anyone would dare mention his questionable past. The other reason is that he thinks he can silence me through nuisance lawsuits.

Kinsella has already sued me once this year for pointing out another true fact – that he gave help and advice to the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress in their failed attempt to censor Maclean’s magazine.

You can read the rest here.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on December 11, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105365462d1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Warren Kinsella sues Ezra Levant (again):

Comments

Defending one's reputation against malicious libel is not "censorship" and has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

http://www.wernerpatels.com/2008/12/stop-crying-us.html

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-12-11 3:28:31 PM


Werner Patels, of course defending one's reputation against malicious libel is not censorship, but neither is it libel, malicious or otherwise, when one states the documented truth.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-12-11 3:40:17 PM


It's not documented. If it were, Kinsella would have been convicted of fraud in the meantime. You can call him a criminal without being libellous only if a court has declared him to be one. So at this point, it's libel, plain and simple.

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-12-11 3:44:11 PM


Fuck 'em. Fight 'em.

The Standard's journalistic bravery keeps us coming back.

Good luck!

http://www.mikevine.com/

Posted by: Mike Vine | 2008-12-11 3:51:36 PM


Werner Patels, that is nice, however I shall wait for the fat lady to sing....

Posted by: Alain | 2008-12-11 3:59:45 PM


Look, I too believe that Liberals must be wiped off this planet -- and after their recent stunt, their ill-fated putsch attempt against our democratically elected government, I believe that more than ever. The Liberal Party must be put out of business for good.

But all that doesn't suspend the rules we have. If you want to call all those Liberals who have already had their day in court "Adscammers" be my guest, and you'll be on safe ground. But WK is a different story.

Ezra doesn't even bother with hypothetical language; instead, he moves in for the kill and stating certain things as fact even though no "fat lady has sung in a courtroom yet", to use your imagery, Alain. And since that lady has not given her final performance yet, any such allegation is libellous. What is more, it also violates s. 298 of the Criminal Code (read up on it)

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-12-11 4:14:19 PM


I read the libel notice Kinsella has served and the Levant quotes it contains.

Levant is clearly saying that Kinsella is a sleaze who hangs around with crooks and dabbles in their water, but is not actually a proven crook himself.

I sure hope that such comments are not held to be defamatory or libelous.

Posted by: Fred Z | 2008-12-11 4:15:38 PM


Fred, he called him a con-artist and an Adscammer on his blog. That's pretty straightforward and pretend-factual stuff, and therefore libellous.

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-12-11 4:22:42 PM


Frankly, at this point I think linking to or quoting anything Ezra writes is inviting lawsuits. If you notice the NP article, they just gave him a link (which might itself be enough to attract a lawsuit). I know he's your guys' founder, but he's past his best buy date by a long, long time.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-12-11 5:19:36 PM


Is Kinsella getting free legal service from himself for all the suing he's doing?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-12-11 6:33:06 PM


WP, if you bother to read the post on Ezra's blog, you can find the link to the judge's findings which are quoted by Ezra. Sorry but it is in black and white and the information is public domaine. So yes in this regard the fat lady has sung and left the stage.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-12-11 6:34:58 PM


It would be nice if the fat lady was to sit on WKs head, and let out all that hot air...

Posted by: Sean | 2008-12-11 8:35:24 PM


BCL,
You should talk given your recent false accusation against Steyn.

Posted by: craig | 2008-12-12 6:28:16 PM


Sorry, Alain, there has been no declaratory judgment of any sort against Kinsella that would have found him to be a "criminal" or "scammer" or "con-artist". Therefore, Ezzie is guilty of libel (and he should also read up on s.298 of the Criminal Code, because if pushed by an aggrieved party, he could go to jail for several years under said section of the Criminal Code).

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-12-12 8:48:59 PM


My goodness! If my poor, dead auntie (God bless her soul) were alive today to hear about this lawsuit, her loud and vulgar cussing would put her in jail just so the common neighbours wouldn't have to listen to such a racket. Never mind about the dogs howling and the cocks crowing.

Posted by: dewp | 2008-12-12 9:37:56 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.