Fortunata Posted June 12, 2008 Report Posted June 12, 2008 I'm a little confused here too, as fas as I understand anyone can sue anyone, Not sure it has anything to do with the Crown... does it? No, the Crown gets involved when there is criminality. This is nothing more than a ploy to not answer to the people; to hinder Liberal's rights to use soundbytes (hypocritical as it is as the Cons use out of context soundbytes against the Liberals) and to generally keep up their smear of the Libs. The Conservatives can't get it into their heads THEY are the government, not the opposition. Even a little class seems to be beyond them. Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 12, 2008 Report Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) I'm not a liberal party supporter. also you're argument is rather hilarious because you're claiming that if we don't allow the government to silence it's opposition in the courts, we may as well live in a dictatorship. You want to talk about blind Partisanship? It's a person who upon having his party criticized by a relative new comer to the forum, assumes that the poster has a particular party affiliation, because it allows them to disregard what the person is saying. Thanks for giving us such a great example of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, returning to the topic, Excuse me, I'm confused again. I don't recall addressing any post to you personally at all! So how could I have made any assumption against you? If you look at my post I was responding to jdobbin. And what is the basis for your assumption that the Tories are MY party? If so, only by default 'cuz they smell slightly less than the others. ALL of them have grievous faults! As for silencing Opposition in the courts, if you were right then the very concept of parliamentary privilege would be unnecessary! Nobody has muzzled the Opposition in Parliament, except maybe the Liberals themselves for refusing to vote against the government. It's when they speak or act in a libelous fashion OUTSIDE of the House that they can be charged, and rightly so. Why should they be any more special than a private citizen like you or I? Because they are politicians? They have their Privilege so they can yap off within the walls of a Parliament and that's enough for them! The only party I ever championed died when they merged with the Progressive Conservatives and allowed the tail to take over the dog, if I may garble a metaphor. Edited June 12, 2008 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted June 12, 2008 Report Posted June 12, 2008 I'm a little confused here too, as fas as I understand anyone can sue anyone, Not sure it has anything to do with the Crown... does it? You have to have reasonable grounds. The Crown or if necessary a judge will decide if your case has merit. Otherwise someone with a tinfoil hat could tie up the court's time. Granted, the bar is very low. Still, I refer to my post mentioning parliamentary privilege. As an MP you can't be sued for something said in the House. It's an indication of how "new" Dion's people were when they mouthed off outside the House. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Posted June 12, 2008 How many is "all"? Two? Three?So what if there's more? There has to be some reasonable basis before the Crown will accept a charge. Are you saying that if there are a large number of charges against the Liberals they should all be dropped because it's a large number? Or that any party that transgresses against the law should not be charged because they're a political party? You're still confusing me here! Actually, I was referring two dozen or times the Tories have run to the courts. I wasn't referring to just lawsuits against Liberals. I was referring to lawsuits against Elections Canada, against former candidates, running to the court to prevent information on Afghan detainees and a host of other issues. There has been quite a few comments about those times in this forum. For a minimum of a thousand dollars, you can now silence a MP from asking questions in the House of Commons by suing them. Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 12, 2008 Report Posted June 12, 2008 Actually, I was referring two dozen or times the Tories have run to the courts. I wasn't referring to just lawsuits against Liberals. I was referring to lawsuits against Elections Canada, against former candidates, running to the court to prevent information on Afghan detainees and a host of other issues.There has been quite a few comments about those times in this forum. For a minimum of a thousand dollars, you can now silence a MP from asking questions in the House of Commons by suing them. Ah, I see your point. It does seem they are going overboard. I agree with them about laying charges if the accusations seem libelous but only in extreme cases and only judiciously. One or two lawsuits where their opponent is clearly in the wrong makes a point. A couple of dozen just seems anal retentive! On this point I believe I agree with you. As for the $1000, it's tempting to take up a collection to shut some MPs up! There were times with Sheila Copps I could have passed a hat for a grand in no time flat! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted June 13, 2008 Author Report Posted June 13, 2008 On this point I believe I agree with you. As for the $1000, it's tempting to take up a collection to shut some MPs up!There were times with Sheila Copps I could have passed a hat for a grand in no time flat! It was shortsighted thinking on the part of the Tories. They should have spoke up on that one since a lawsuit against them also prevents them from responding to questions and could remove them from a ministry if the Ethics Commissioner if they can't even talk about a key issue in their portfolio. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 3, 2008 Author Report Posted July 3, 2008 Harper has upped the ante. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...MPwQpkhZdM3xywQ Prime Minister Stephen Harper has upped the ante in his $2.5 million defamation suit against the Liberals, claiming an additional $1 million for "misappropriation of personality." Why stop there? Why not raise it up to tens of millions of dollars? Quote
Fortunata Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Harper has upped the ante.http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...MPwQpkhZdM3xywQ Why stop there? Why not raise it up to tens of millions of dollars? If he thought it would decimate the Liberal Party for good he would. Our Steve needs to grow a little "tramp" mustache to go with his personality. Quote
Visionseeker Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Harper has upped the ante.http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...MPwQpkhZdM3xywQ Why stop there? Why not raise it up to tens of millions of dollars? Raising the ante in a lawsuit is usually an act of desperation. Litigants who raise the bar are almost always bluffing. But then almost isn’t always. All the same, I have seen nothing to date to suggest anything other than the Conservatives will lose this case (with prejudice). Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 If he thought it would decimate the Liberal Party for good he would. Our Steve needs to grow a little "tramp" mustache to go with his personality. I see. Harper is in the wrong because the Liberals libeled and broke the law. The Liberals must be allowed to libel and break the law outside the House with impunity, because they are Liberals and the Tories are not. That seems to be your entire argument. Perhaps you could point out where I misunderstood your words. Are you one of the top posters from "babble.ca", by any chance? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Topaz Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 I would like to see all the Cons that did talk to Cadman and all in the PMO and especially Harper take a lie-detector test and reveal it after they had they day in court. I would want the same questions asked of them as it was asked in the House. I also believe that Harper is only doing this to get power for the Cons so they will be the ONLY governing government and take the country into HIS direction and that is dictatorship. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 I would like to see all the Cons that did talk to Cadman and all in the PMO and especially Harper take a lie-detector test and reveal it after they had they day in court. I would want the same questions asked of them as it was asked in the House. I also believe that Harper is only doing this to get power for the Cons so they will be the ONLY governing government and take the country into HIS direction and that is dictatorship. I would like to see your toaster and all your small appliances take lie detector tests.. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
noahbody Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) I would like to see all the Cons that did talk to Cadman I believe there was two. and all in the PMO and especially Harper take a lie-detector test and reveal it after they had they day in court. They could ask him if he had a majority if he would bring in the death penalty, make abortion illegal, eat babies, etc. Then we could put Chretien on the stand and ask him about sponsorship. Edited July 3, 2008 by noahbody Quote
Fortunata Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 I see. Harper is in the wrong because the Liberals libeled and broke the law. The Liberals must be allowed to libel and break the law outside the House with impunity, because they are Liberals and the Tories are not.That seems to be your entire argument. Perhaps you could point out where I misunderstood your words. Are you one of the top posters from "babble.ca", by any chance? You did misunderstand, as this really has nothing to do with the actual libel suit at all but the methodology that Harper uses. He doesn't mind taking sound bites from the Libs out of context and putting his own spin on their words, but hey .... I guess that's ok as long as you're a Con. They don't mind attributing completely untrue characterizations to people, like what the Taliban Jack thing came to. It's the big stick theory .... use double the stick that is necessary. Or triple. I think the lawsuit thing is disgraceful to start with. The Libs no more defamed Harper than what the tape indicated or what they have done to others themselves. People will believe it or not - Steve (just call me Sue) Harper thinks that this will get him more votes? I think that it will do the opposite as most people don't like this kind of action. It is unPrime Ministerial as we have seen time and again from this thug-type character. And, babble - no I don't subscribe there nor even read there. I am not an NDP sympathizer (not even closet) and I am not a Liberal, just in case you want to label me. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 You did misunderstand, as this really has nothing to do with the actual libel suit at all but the methodology that Harper uses. He doesn't mind taking sound bites from the Libs out of context and putting his own spin on their words, but hey .... I guess that's ok as long as you're a Con. They don't mind attributing completely untrue characterizations to people, like what the Taliban Jack thing came to. It's the big stick theory .... use double the stick that is necessary. Or triple. I think the lawsuit thing is disgraceful to start with. The Libs no more defamed Harper than what the tape indicated or what they have done to others themselves. People will believe it or not - Steve (just call me Sue) Harper thinks that this will get him more votes? I think that it will do the opposite as most people don't like this kind of action. It is unPrime Ministerial as we have seen time and again from this thug-type character.And, babble - no I don't subscribe there nor even read there. I am not an NDP sympathizer (not even closet) and I am not a Liberal, just in case you want to label me. Well, you have your view. All I can say is thank heavens we have courts and judges! As for the "babble" reference, forgive me. I made an error based on your debating style. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Fortunata Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Well, you have your view. All I can say is thank heavens we have courts and judges! So you don't think he's employing a double standard? Or are you one of the herd that either doesn't see it or doesn't care or thinks it is a necessary tool, no matter how low he stoops? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 So you don't think he's employing a double standard? Or are you one of the herd that either doesn't see it or doesn't care or thinks it is a necessary tool, no matter how low he stoops? No, I'm just someone who understands that within the House MPs have privilege, which means they can say anything and not be sued. Outside the House they are ordinary citizens without being "special", the same as you and me. I really don't want to see MPs able to utter slander and libel with impunity, just 'cuz they're MPs. I don't care if it's a double or a quadruple standard! What's more, I wouldn't forgive a Tory or an NDP MP who broke the law and wound up being sued. ANY MP who commits libel or slander outside the House should be sued! Frankly, your arguments strike me as being purely partisan. You don't like Harper and the Tories, period. I really don't think a lot of MOST politicians! Still, some smell less than others but to hear you tell it your favourites are "a rose by any other name". Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bk59 Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 You have to have reasonable grounds. The Crown or if necessary a judge will decide if your case has merit. Otherwise someone with a tinfoil hat could tie up the court's time. Granted, the bar is very low. Actually, no, you don't need reasonable grounds to sue someone. To sue someone all you need is about $200 and some paper filed with a court. To go to trial you need to have something worth having a trial about. To win you need to be right (or as close to right as you can get in a court). But to sue someone? You really don't need anything at all. And the Crown has absolutely nothing to do with civil suits. No, I'm just someone who understands that within the House MPs have privilege, which means they can say anything and not be sued. Outside the House they are ordinary citizens without being "special", the same as you and me.I really don't want to see MPs able to utter slander and libel with impunity, just 'cuz they're MPs. Except you apparently don't mind it when MPs are able to "utter slander and libel with impunity" just because they are MPs in their seats in the House? Personally, I would love to see MPs actually do business in the House. Stuff like actually debate issues, or maybe even work together to get something useful done. Perhaps this is expecting too much from our current crop of elected officials. I guess my bottom line is, why bother suing the Liberals over this? It's a big waste of time and money. Did the Liberals say something mean about poor PM Harper? Ah, that's a shame. He gets as much sympathy from me as PM Martin or PM Chretien did when the Conservatives or Reform Party said something mean about them. Quote
Fortunata Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 No, I'm just someone who understands that within the House MPs have privilege, which means they can say anything and not be sued. Outside the House they are ordinary citizens without being "special", the same as you and me. You still don't get it. The way Harper handles situations is not Prime Ministerial. In fact I would call it cowardly - he makes his slurs in the House alright which I guess it makes it legal but not any more ethical. But he took bits and pieces from the Liberals and put them in his "Prime Ministerial" attack ads out of context. I really don't want to see MPs able to utter slander and libel with impunity, just 'cuz they're MPs. I agree with that, in OR out of the HoC. I don't care if it's a double or a quadruple standard! What's more, I wouldn't forgive a Tory or an NDP MP who broke the law and wound up being sued. ANY MP who commits libel or slander outside the House should be sued! There are many others who feel the same way but I don't. I don't believe in all this rhetoric that is thrown around. Someone made the comment that politics is a spectator sport; probably the same people would enjoy the old gladiator sports back in Roman times. Frankly, your arguments strike me as being purely partisan. You don't like Harper and the Tories, period. I really don't think a lot of MOST politicians! Still, some smell less than others but to hear you tell it your favourites are "a rose by any other name". And I find your arguments partisan. Harper is your golden boy, fine. I don't like him. I will be very happy when he is no longer leading the CPC. I have a relative that is in the RCMP. He told me that getting transferred is very trying to start with -- depending on who's in charge of the detachment is the tone that the members take. Some good, some bad. Harper sets a bad tone. New leader = new party. And no, my "favourites" haven't shown up in Parliament ... yet. Quote
Savant Posted July 9, 2008 Report Posted July 9, 2008 Looks like things got a bit worse for the Liberals... Author's claim false, Cadman's widow saysThe widow of former MP Chuck Cadman has contradicted public accounts by author Tom Zytaruk of what happened the day of an interview that is pivotal in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lawsuit against the federal Liberal party. In a sworn affidavit submitted in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice yesterday, Dona Cadman says the journalist did not meet Mr. Harper in the Cadman house and he was not introduced by the late MP's wife. "Nobody came inside my house while Mr. Harper was in the house with me," she said. "I did not introduce Tom Zytaruk to Mr. Harper on Sept. 9, 2005." (ref) Something tells me this isn't going to end well for the Liberals... Quote
jdobbin Posted July 9, 2008 Author Report Posted July 9, 2008 Looks like things got a bit worse for the Liberals...Something tells me this isn't going to end well for the Liberals... Really. Then why isn't Harper suing the author? Why isn't Mrs. Cadman? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 9, 2008 Report Posted July 9, 2008 Really. Then why isn't Harper suing the author? Why isn't Mrs. Cadman? Why should she? What's in it for her? She's got her own life. She's simply being a witness. Has anyone libeled her? Harper's problems and Dion's problems are their own. She's merely stating what she saw happen. Perhaps the author should sue for defamation of character. Or his wife for loss of income. Or maybe his nephews for possible loss of inheritance money... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted July 9, 2008 Author Report Posted July 9, 2008 She's got her own life. She's simply being a witness. Has anyone libeled her? Harper's problems and Dion's problems are their own. She's merely stating what she saw happen.Perhaps the author should sue for defamation of character. Or his wife for loss of income. Or maybe his nephews for possible loss of inheritance money... One would assume it was the author who stepped wrong with her since he is saying she was there when he made the call to Harper. It is strange that she has only now said she wasn't. Why the wait? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 9, 2008 Report Posted July 9, 2008 One would assume it was the author who stepped wrong with her since he is saying she was there when he made the call to Harper. It is strange that she has only now said she wasn't. Why the wait? Oh, she probably is on the take too! Her children and grand children as well! Just as Cadman was! Likely, the majority of their town is crooked! After all, they elected Cadman and not a Liberal! Come to think of it, there were reports of some shifty-looking pets around that town. Just how far are you intending to spin this? We seem to be moving into "reptilian kitten eater" territory. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted July 9, 2008 Author Report Posted July 9, 2008 Oh, she probably is on the take too! Her children and grand children as well! Just as Cadman was! Likely, the majority of their town is crooked! After all, they elected Cadman and not a Liberal!Come to think of it, there were reports of some shifty-looking pets around that town. Just how far are you intending to spin this? We seem to be moving into "reptilian kitten eater" territory. Well, we certainly know Cadman wasn't swayed by the Tory offer or we would have seen an election back then. As far as the rest of your overreaction, Mrs. Cadman had plenty of time to dispute what the author said before now and didn't. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.