Tories Sue Again

[jbg]

You partisanly claim that it is libel when it has not been proven to be untrue. If the book is published and released to the public with the "libelous" quote and then that passage is used by another parties; who is to blame? The originator or the subsequent vehicles who has only taken the author at his word? Harper has been known to spin, misconstrue and mislead about things - why would anyone take his word over someone else's?

These kinds of suits are exactly why public figures should not, absent malice, be able to bring actions for libel or slander. The CPC as well as the idiots pressing the HRC complaints can be expected to take full advantage of the law, even when that law is bad. The law should be neutral and clear; almost absolute free speech. Then, there wouldn't be issues of Islamofascists who don't believe in neutral human rights bringing "human rights" complaints or politicians bringing libel actions for allegations that are partially though not 100% true.

[bk59]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if someone printed a book that libeled you and then I or someone else repeated the libel on a website to the world, that only the author should face a lawsuit? That I or anyone else should get off scott free?

Some of these posts show why it is that many times when someone is on trial it is the "alleged crime" that is discussed and not the "crime" per se. Because Wild Bill is correct in pointing out the catch 22 of saying "something is not libel until proven in a court of law so you can't go to court because you do not know if it is libel". So for all the particularly precise people out there, we can say that the Liberals allegedly libeled Harper.

However, Wild Bill I think you may be missing one of the points that was hidden within the post. If someone printed a libelous book, and then someone else repeated that libel on their website, why would you just sue the website people? As you said, it does not make sense that you would sue only the author of the book, because the people who ran the website also engaged in the alleged libelous behaviour. But it also does not make sense to only sue the website people since the author of the book also engaged in the libelous behaviour.

So it does seem odd to only sue one of the two parties. Why not sue both? It doesn't make sense unless you are just playing games. It never looks good when a PM is suing someone. But suing the opposition party looks better than suing average joe citizen. If the alleged libel is not serious enough to sue everyone involved then I say stop playing stupid politics and wasting the court's time. Get on with actually governing the country. The parties do not have to agree on every policy, but they should be working together and at least be civil towards one another. They shouldn't be bringing useless lawsuits in an effort to score political points.

[Wild Bill]

Some of these posts show why it is that many times when someone is on trial it is the "alleged crime" that is discussed and not the "crime" per se. Because Wild Bill is correct in pointing out the catch 22 of saying "something is not libel until proven in a court of law so you can't go to court because you do not know if it is libel". So for all the particularly precise people out there, we can say that the Liberals allegedly libeled Harper.

However, Wild Bill I think you may be missing one of the points that was hidden within the post. If someone printed a libelous book, and then someone else repeated that libel on their website, why would you just sue the website people? As you said, it does not make sense that you would sue only the author of the book, because the people who ran the website also engaged in the alleged libelous behaviour. But it also does not make sense to only sue the website people since the author of the book also engaged in the libelous behaviour.

So it does seem odd to only sue one of the two parties. Why not sue both? It doesn't make sense unless you are just playing games. It never looks good when a PM is suing someone. But suing the opposition party looks better than suing average joe citizen. If the alleged libel is not serious enough to sue everyone involved then I say stop playing stupid politics and wasting the court's time. Get on with actually governing the country. The parties do not have to agree on every policy, but they should be working together and at least be civil towards one another. They shouldn't be bringing useless lawsuits in an effort to score political points.

You're quite right! The Tories SHOULD sue the author as well!

Perhaps they were more upset at the allegations coming from a political opponent using them for partisan purposes. By themselves the author and his book are small potatoes. When the Liberals air the allegations to the world that's something else.

The author is either telling the truth or he's just an opportunistic shill. He should be sued so that a judge can ascertain guilt or innocence.

I don't care for all these lawsuits either but I find it interesting that so many feel that it's Harper's fault for making the charges rather than the Liberals at fault for breaking laws. With Cadman, if the Libs had just been smart enough to keep such charges within the walls of Parliament there could have been no lawsuit. The issue of the GreenShift company name didn't have to happen either. It makes the Libs look like arrogant, self-centred bullies.

These things are bigger than just Liberal/Tory feuding. I don't want to see public slander and libel between parties in the media everyday. The Law of Parliamentary privilege was written for good reasons. If Harper dropped his lawsuits would the Liberals likely stop provoking them? Not likely, it seems. The present crop seems to feel that somehow they are "special".

I wouldn't respect this attitude if the party positions were reversed, either. Somehow 'though, I would expect the same Liberal apologists in this forum to come up with some convoluted argument as to why the Liberals would be in the right.

Some folks it seems can only see evil through their "right" eye...

[Visionseeker]

However, Wild Bill I think you may be missing one of the points that was hidden within the post. If someone printed a libelous book, and then someone else repeated that libel on their website, why would you just sue the website people? As you said, it does not make sense that you would sue only the author of the book, because the people who ran the website also engaged in the alleged libelous behaviour. But it also does not make sense to only sue the website people since the author of the book also engaged in the libelous behaviour.

Nail, Head, Hammer ---> BANG!

That is precisely the point here. By failing to go after the actual source of the alleged libel (the author), the CPC’s legal strategy comes across as severely wanting if not fatally flawed. As it now stands, the CPC has to prove that the defendants knew the book’s claims to be false when they made their statements and posted the materials under contest.

That's going to be a tall order considering the CPC seem disinterested in pursuing the original source of the allegations. It suggests that they don’t take issue with the advanced thesis; rather they simply don’t want the Liberals advancing it.

So it does seem odd to only sue one of the two parties. Why not sue both? It doesn't make sense unless you are just playing games. It never looks good when a PM is suing someone. But suing the opposition party looks better than suing average joe citizen. If the alleged libel is not serious enough to sue everyone involved then I say stop playing stupid politics and wasting the court's time. Get on with actually governing the country. The parties do not have to agree on every policy, but they should be working together and at least be civil towards one another. They shouldn't be bringing useless lawsuits in an effort to score political points.

It most certainly does appear like the whole affair is nothing more than a deflection exercise designed to change the narrative from "did Harper know there were bribes being offered?" to "did the Liberals go too far and smear the PM?" Perhaps a tactically sound move in the short term, but political games don't win libel suits and putting off controversies has a tendency of facilitating their growth.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Visionseeker

[Visionseeker]

I don't care for all these lawsuits either but I find it interesting that so many feel that it's Harper's fault for making the charges rather than the Liberals at fault for breaking laws. With Cadman, if the Libs had just been smart enough to keep such charges within the walls of Parliament there could have been no lawsuit.

Sure they could’ve hidden behind parliamentary privileges and said whatever they liked in the House, but the fact is they didn’t. Now Harper is suing them. By not suing the author as well, Harper’s case is weakened from the start. If he loses the suit, he’ll have bigger problems on his hands than he started with.

The issue of the GreenShift company name didn't have to happen either. It makes the Libs look like arrogant, self-centred bullies.

As for the Libs coming across as arrogant, self-centred bullies for GreenShift, I think thou dost project too much. While it is true that the name game doesn't reflect positively on the Liberals, it by no means earns them the attributes more commonly associated with Harper and the Conservatives.

These things are bigger than just Liberal/Tory feuding. I don't want to see public slander and libel between parties in the media everyday. The Law of Parliamentary privilege was written for good reasons. If Harper dropped his lawsuits would the Liberals likely stop provoking them? Not likely, it seems. The present crop seems to feel that somehow they are "special".

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the Liberals did indeed libel the PM - a point which has yet to be proven.

I wouldn't respect this attitude if the party positions were reversed, either. Somehow 'though, I would expect the same Liberal apologists in this forum to come up with some convoluted argument as to why the Liberals would be in the right.

Kudos to your professed balance. For my part, I fully support the PM's right to seek redress through the courts. I just happen to think he'll lose here.

Some folks it seems can only see evil through their "right" eye...

Interesting point. Seeing as my politics are rather centrist, would this make me cross-eyed?

Edited July 28, 2008 by Visionseeker

[bk59]

Perhaps they were more upset at the allegations coming from a political opponent using them for partisan purposes. By themselves the author and his book are small potatoes. When the Liberals air the allegations to the world that's something else.

Welcome to politics in Canada over the past decade (at least). Opposition parties make allegations about the government. There is nothing new about that.

I don't care for all these lawsuits either but I find it interesting that so many feel that it's Harper's fault for making the charges rather than the Liberals at fault for breaking laws. With Cadman, if the Libs had just been smart enough to keep such charges within the walls of Parliament there could have been no lawsuit. The issue of the GreenShift company name didn't have to happen either. It makes the Libs look like arrogant, self-centred bullies.

These things are bigger than just Liberal/Tory feuding. I don't want to see public slander and libel between parties in the media everyday. The Law of Parliamentary privilege was written for good reasons. If Harper dropped his lawsuits would the Liberals likely stop provoking them? Not likely, it seems. The present crop seems to feel that somehow they are "special".

The distinction that people keep trying to make about Parliamentary privilege is just a smokescreen in my opinion. Again, let's look at politics over the past decade. There have been many allegations that would count as slander. These have been made in the House, outside the House in media scrums, in the talking points that get repeated on news broadcasts, etc. No one started suing based on those allegations. No one tried to make this distinction regarding Parliamentary privilege. Mostly because the allegations were essentially the same inside and outside the House. Sure, there was still more "colourful" language used in the House, but the allegations were substantially the same inside and outside.

Honestly, as far as I can tell, there is nothing different about this "present crop" of Liberals compared to any other opposition party over the last decade.

For example, the NDP and CPC were more than happy to allege wrongdoing and call for RCMP investigations during the last election. There was definitely a partisan motive there.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Liberals are perfect. It's just that they were the government for so long that many previous examples all involve other parties in opposition.

The bottom line is that the CPC has become quite litigious for a political party over the last few years. I find that inappropriate. Do I think it's right that all of the parties are wasting the public's time with pointless slander & libel? No. But wasting more time and money on lawsuits is not the solution.

In my opinion the solution is for politicians to start sucking it up and ignoring the excessive comments of those other politicians that have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the governance of this country. They should be concentrating on having real debates and not making outrageous claims or suing each other.

[Keepitsimple]

I've said it before but it's worth repeating. This isn't just about the Liberals accusing Harper of "knowing about bribes to Cadman". Their website - totally outside the purpiew of Parliament - said the following:

1) Harper must come clean about allegations of Conservative Bribery

2) He knew that it was immoral

3) He knew that it was unethical

4) He knew it was illegal

These statements, for which the Liberal Party and its leader refuse to offer an apology, are shameful and go far beyond the usual unsavoury Parliamentary antics. These personal attacks on a sitting Prime Minister of any stripe are totally unacceptable and fully warrant the litigation that is underway.

[madmax]

The CPC offered Cadman Financial incentives to vote down the government.

You may not like the Liberal Slant.

I don't like the actions of Finley on behalf of Harper and the CPC.

The CPC lawsuit is sucky.

[jdobbin]

These statements, for which the Liberal Party and its leader refuse to offer an apology, are shameful and go far beyond the usual unsavoury Parliamentary antics.

The Tories don't want an apology even if it was offered. They say the lawsuit goes on regardless.

[southerncomfort]

I've said it before but it's worth repeating. This isn't just about the Liberals accusing Harper of "knowing about bribes to Cadman". Their website - totally outside the purpiew of Parliament - said the following:

1) Harper must come clean about allegations of Conservative Bribery

2) He knew that it was immoral

3) He knew that it was unethical

4) He knew it was illegal

These statements, for which the Liberal Party and its leader refuse to offer an apology, are shameful and go far beyond the usual unsavoury Parliamentary antics. These personal attacks on a sitting Prime Minister of any stripe are totally unacceptable and fully warrant the litigation that is underway.

Totally agree, so far no proof of any bribe it's all in the minds of the Liberal patriots

[Keepitsimple]

The Tories don't want an apology even if it was offered. They say the lawsuit goes on regardless.

I wouldn't be surprised because the accusations of being immoral, unethical and illegal are totally over the top and a half-hearted apology does nothing to remove all the negative publicity that has raged for months.....but do you have a cite for your claim?

Edited July 28, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't be surprised because the accusations of being immoral, unethical and illegal are totally over the top and a half-hearted apology does nothing to remove all the negative publicity that has raged for months.....but do you have a cite for your claim?

The cite was given in this forum and a discussion of how the Tories now just wanted to bankrupt the Liberals if they could.

The Tory party said that they would not accept an apology even if it was offered and would sue the Liberals anyway.

[Keepitsimple]

The cite was given in this forum and a discussion of how the Tories now just wanted to bankrupt the Liberals if they could.

The Tory party said that they would not accept an apology even if it was offered and would sue the Liberals anyway.

I'll take your word for it. I guess it's a moot point since the Liberals have said that they have no intention of apologizing. They could have just blamed the over-the top comments on their Web Content guy and apologized for that - and then continue to bash the Conservatives in Question Period......but they decided that they did nothing wrong in calling Harper immoral, unethical, and a criminal in a public arena. So.....good luck in court.

[bk59]

Their website - totally outside the purpiew of Parliament - said the following:

1) Harper must come clean about allegations of Conservative Bribery

2) He knew that it was immoral

3) He knew that it was unethical

4) He knew it was illegal

These statements, for which the Liberal Party and its leader refuse to offer an apology, are shameful and go far beyond the usual unsavoury Parliamentary antics. These personal attacks on a sitting Prime Minister of any stripe are totally unacceptable and fully warrant the litigation that is underway.

I wouldn't be surprised because the accusations of being immoral, unethical and illegal are totally over the top and a half-hearted apology does nothing to remove all the negative publicity that has raged for months.....but do you have a cite for your claim?

Here is the great thing about your posts: you actually think that allegations that a Prime Minister is immoral, unethical or engaged in illegal activity "go far beyond the usual" and are "over the top". Give me a break. Where were you when the opposition parties were calling Chrétien immoral, unethical and guilty of engaging in illegal activity? Where were you when they did the same to Martin? Allegations that a PM, or anyone in politics for that matter, is immoral or unethical are almost par for the course. Allegations of illegal actions pop up in a number of scandals.

Instead of dealing with the situation like a Prime Minister, Harper decided to sue. It looks petty. It looks like he and his party are playing games with the legal system. I am not saying the Liberal party was right to act as they did. But inappropriate action by one party does not excuse the inappropriate action of the other party.

Your position that these actions "fully warrant" litigation is absurd. Should Harper have been sued every time he called the entire Liberal party corrupt? That was equivalent to saying that PM Martin was immoral, unethical and engaged in illegal activity.

The bottom line is we need to demand more of our politicians. We need to see some decorum. No more crazy allegations (which all parties are guilty of). No more "I'm telling my Mommy on you because you insulted me" litigation.

[gc1765]

Here is the great thing about your posts: you actually think that allegations that a Prime Minister is immoral, unethical or engaged in illegal activity "go far beyond the usual" and are "over the top". Give me a break. Where were you when the opposition parties were calling Chrétien immoral, unethical and guilty of engaging in illegal activity? Where were you when they did the same to Martin? Allegations that a PM, or anyone in politics for that matter, is immoral or unethical are almost par for the course. Allegations of illegal actions pop up in a number of scandals.

Instead of dealing with the situation like a Prime Minister, Harper decided to sue. It looks petty. It looks like he and his party are playing games with the legal system. I am not saying the Liberal party was right to act as they did. But inappropriate action by one party does not excuse the inappropriate action of the other party.

Your position that these actions "fully warrant" litigation is absurd. Should Harper have been sued every time he called the entire Liberal party corrupt? That was equivalent to saying that PM Martin was immoral, unethical and engaged in illegal activity.

The bottom line is we need to demand more of our politicians. We need to see some decorum. No more crazy allegations (which all parties are guilty of). No more "I'm telling my Mommy on you because you insulted me" litigation.

Well said.

[jdobbin]

I'll take your word for it. I guess it's a moot point since the Liberals have said that they have no intention of apologizing.

Once the Tories said they would not accept an apology and would sue anyways, the Liberals had no alternative but to go to court. There was an attempt to come to a settlement but it appears the Tories wanted a large sum of money as part of that settlement. The deal broke down and the Tories tacked another $1 million to the suit.

Unlike Dion who sued Duceppe, the Tories seem to want get money out of this. Dion said he would drop his lawsuit against Duceppe if he apologized for remarks that Dion was connected to the sponsorship scandal. Money was not required as part of the agreement.

I personally disagreed with Dion's decision to sue Duceppe as I think Dion should have ripped him in Parliament to show evidence that Dion was involved in sponsorship. In any event, the lawsuit was quickly dealt with.

I now believe Harper is using this as a way to bankrupt the Liberals if he can. It is a risky proposition if it raises more questions about what was offered to Cadman than it answers.

[Keepitsimple]

Once the Tories said they would not accept an apology and would sue anyways, the Liberals had no alternative but to go to court. There was an attempt to come to a settlement but it appears the Tories wanted a large sum of money as part of that settlement. The deal broke down and the Tories tacked another $1 million to the suit.

Unlike Dion who sued Duceppe, the Tories seem to want get money out of this. Dion said he would drop his lawsuit against Duceppe if he apologized for remarks that Dion was connected to the sponsorship scandal. Money was not required as part of the agreement.

I personally disagreed with Dion's decision to sue Duceppe as I think Dion should have ripped him in Parliament to show evidence that Dion was involved in sponsorship. In any event, the lawsuit was quickly dealt with.

I now believe Harper is using this as a way to bankrupt the Liberals if he can. It is a risky proposition if it raises more questions about what was offered to Cadman than it answers.

If it was that risky, they wouldn't do it. Everything points to the tape being doctored......the question is why it was doctored.....and who knew what and when in the Liberal Party. Perhaps frivolous to some, the court case should be quite entertaining.

[jdobbin]

If it was that risky, they wouldn't do it. Everything points to the tape being doctored......the question is why it was doctored.....and who knew what and when in the Liberal Party. Perhaps frivolous to some, the court case should be quite entertaining.

This is standard right wing stance that somehow the Liberals knew or actually doctored the tape. I don't see how since it is the same recording that the media has now.

As for risky propositions, it isn't the first time the Tories have gone to court and lost.

Edited July 30, 2008 by jdobbin

[bk59]

If it was that risky, they wouldn't do it.

False. People do risky stuff all the time if they think the potential gain is worth the risk. As others pointed out, it looks like Harper just wants to make the Liberal Party spend as much money as possible. Which in my opinion is absolutely despicable. It would be nice if the different parties competed on issues and policies not on trying to bankrupt and smear one another.

Everything points to the tape being doctored......

Except for the experts who say it is too early to make that determination since no one has actually analyzed the original tape.

the question is why it was doctored.....and who knew what and when in the Liberal Party.

The important question is whether a bribe was actually offered. And who knew what and when in the Conservative Party. The RCMP concluded there was not enough evidence to answer these questions. Case closed. Move on.

Quite frankly I don't care that the Liberals posted quotes of what their members said in the House of Commons. I don't care that they referred to allegations of wrongdoing in their promotional and fundraising material. It is no different than what other opposition parties have been doing over the past decade.

Perhaps frivolous to some, the court case should be quite entertaining.

The litigation is frivolous, and wastes the court's time and therefore taxpayer money. It makes Harper look petty and unable to act like a Prime Minister. The statement of claim is in many ways sad and amusing. The one part I do like is where Harper accuses the Liberal party of libel for saying that "the Conservatives knee-jerk reaction has been... [to] threaten litigation". You know something is wrong when you sue someone for, amongst other things, saying that you threatened to sue them.

One thing I am sure of, the case will not be entertaining. It will simply be an example of politicians on both sides whining and attempting to justify their actions.

[Topaz]

If the Tories did try to buy out Cadman and his family says the Tories did , then why wouldn't they doctor the TAPE themselves then come back and say we got it tested by these two guys and they say the tape is doctored. Do I trust this government no, not by what I have seen and heard in Question Period. There's too much riding on on this law suit for the Conservatives and they will spin and spin to say otherwise. Of course , IF I'm wrong I'll say so but Cadman own family is saying different and the author said they never changed anything with the tape, so who did?

[Fortunata]

Why would the family say the CPC did try to bribe Cadman? Then why would Dona Cadman run for an unethical party that tried to bribe her husband? Then why would Dona say that she looked into Steve's eyes and saw that Steve did not know anything about the bribe (remember the looking into eyes between Bush and Putin?)? Why would Dona disassociate with the author who did the taping and the book if her allegations were true? Why wouldn't Harper sue the pants off the author if it weren't true? If the original tape is the same one the Libs based their bash on, would they still be liable for libel?

None of this makes a whole lot of sense.