Kinsella files $1M lawsuit against Tories, Paradis

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...10?hub=Politics

A Liberal strategist has filed a $1-million libel suit against the Conservative party and Public Works Minister Christian Paradis.

Warren Kinsella alleges that a Feb. 25 news release bearing Conservative party letterhead insinuates he is "unsavoury, dishonest and that (Liberal Leader) Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal party of Canada" should sever ties with him.

The news release quoted Paradis calling Kinsella, who will run the Liberal war room during the next federal election campaign, a "disgraced Chretien backroom organizer."

Wonder how fast we will hear an apology.

[capricorn]

A by-product of this lawsuit is that it keeps Kinsella in the news and all his previous gaffes will be recycled in the media and on blogs. That's better news for the Conservatives than for Ignatieff.

[jdobbin]

A by-product of this lawsuit is that it keeps Kinsella in the news and all his previous gaffes will be recycled in the media and on blogs. That's better news for the Conservatives than for Ignatieff.

Not if the Tories back off in a day.

[Canadian Blue]

Warren Kinsella, the guy who seems to believe freedom of speech is a liberty which can be expediently thrown in the trash whenever someone gets offended. I really don't care when Warren Kinsella gets offended, it's basically a "dog bites man" story.

[kimmy]

To collect a settlement in a lawsuit of this sort, doesn't one have to show that the damage to their reputation merits financial reparation?

In Kinsella's case, I'm not sure it's even possible to do $1 million worth of damage to his reputation, and I say that as somebody who actually enjoys his blog.

-k

[jdobbin]

Warren Kinsella, the guy who seems to believe freedom of speech is a liberty which can be expediently thrown in the trash whenever someone gets offended.

I guess that is what the court decides.

Harper certainly has never had problems going to court when he is offended.

I really don't care when Warren Kinsella gets offended, it's basically a "dog bites man" story.

I was thinking dog eats dog.

[jdobbin]

To collect a settlement in a lawsuit of this sort, doesn't one have to show that the damage to their reputation merits financial reparation?

If it is done as an official capacity as minister of the government, the court may say yes.

In Kinsella's case, I'm not sure it's even possible to do $1 million worth of damage to his reputation, and I say that as somebody who actually enjoys his blog.

The court case might be to keep the Tories from saying anything about Kinsella from here to the next election.

I mentioned way back that when the ethics commissioner made a ruling on how MPs could act when a civil trial was in progress it can quash debate, questions and the like.

[Canadian Blue]

Harper certainly has never had problems going to court when he is offended.

Yes I know, my feeling is that their's nothing wrong with politicians being slandered.

The court case might be to keep the Tories from saying anything about Kinsella from here to the next election.

That's absurd, would that mean the Liberals wouldn't be able to attack the stupidity of that Tory aide. Why should people who take a large role in the election be free from criticism, especially when they're spin doctors and nothing else.

[jdobbin]

Yes I know, my feeling is that their's nothing wrong with politicians being slandered.

Do it outside privilege and risk a lawsuit. It has always been that way.

That's absurd, would that mean the Liberals wouldn't be able to attack the stupidity of that Tory aide. Why should people who take a large role in the election be free from criticism, especially when they're spin doctors and nothing else.

I mentioned the outcome when the Ethics Commissioner ruled that Liberals had to stay quiet when they were sued. Some Tory supporters crowed about that decision. I said it would boomerang.

[Canadian Blue]

Jdobbin, do you have any opinion on issues outside of what a man or woman in robes might say. After all they aren't incarnated with the sole opinion in the land, what's your opinion on this matter?

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, do you have any opinion on issues outside of what a man or woman in robes might say. After all they aren't incarnated with the sole opinion in the land, what's your opinion on this matter?

I have no problems with lawsuits. I do have a problem with the Ethics Commissioner shutting down debate even in the House as a result.

My personal view is that civil lawsuits for political gain mostly fail in Canada. It certainly didn't make Harper more popular.

[noahbody]

Imagine calling someone in politics dishonest. That's absurd.

The defense should get to put him on a lie detector and ask him whatever they want, just to test his honesty.

[Wild Bill]

Imagine calling someone in politics dishonest. That's absurd.

The defense should get to put him on a lie detector and ask him whatever they want, just to test his honesty.

Good point! I'm far from being religious but I had to feel sorry for Stockwell Day when Kinsella mocked his religious beliefs with his 'Barney the Dinosaur' schtick. If Day had been a Muslim there would have been hell to pay, if you'll pardon the pun.

When a man has no respect for others why should he get any in return?

[Argus]

Not if the Tories back off in a day.

Why would they? Kinsella has a reputation as a mudslinger without morals or ethics going back decades. It was Kinsella who engineered the campaign against Mulroney which had Liberal Mps constantly calling him a liar in the commons - where they were protected from lawsuits - on the theory that if you keep repeating such things it wills tick in the public mind. Gee - wonder what books Kinsella had been reading...

Lately he likes to threaten to sue people - for everything and anything. A couple of weeks ago he threatened TVO if they didn't halt a broadcast which would feature Kathy Shaidle because he had a feud with her. In his letter to TVO he called her everything from a Nazi lover to a racist. The broadcast wasn't even about him, nor even mentioned him, nor the Liberal party. He also threatened to sue Ezra Levant after Kinsella's role of advising the Canadian Islamic Congress on how to handle Macleans (they were sueing Macleans for "hate speech" was posted on Levant's blog.

Kinsella was also the guy who pressured Public Works to appoint Chuck Guite to run the Liberals' new "sponsorship program". He has never admitted the Liberals did anything wrong, was a vocal, even fanatic defender of Jean Chretien, attacked the Gomery Commision, and, if any man does, represents Liberals sleaze and arrogance.

It's telling that Ignatieff has appointed a man like this to run the Liberal war room. It shows that nothing is going to change under Ignatieff - except, of course, that the next election will be even dirtier than the last.

[capricorn]

As I said earlier: "A by-product of this lawsuit is that it keeps Kinsella in the news and all his previous gaffes will be recycled in the media and on blogs."

Argus just proved my point. And I agree with everything he said about Kinsella.

[jdobbin]

Why would they? Kinsella has a reputation as a mudslinger without morals or ethics going back decades. It was Kinsella who engineered the campaign against Mulroney which had Liberal Mps constantly calling him a liar in the commons - where they were protected from lawsuits - on the theory that if you keep repeating such things it wills tick in the public mind. Gee - wonder what books Kinsella had been reading...

It seems to be a lesson that Harper has learned as well. However, this time some of their own mudslinging has left the safety of the House.

Lately he likes to threaten to sue people - for everything and anything. A couple of weeks ago he threatened TVO if they didn't halt a broadcast which would feature Kathy Shaidle because he had a feud with her. In his letter to TVO he called her everything from a Nazi lover to a racist. The broadcast wasn't even about him, nor even mentioned him, nor the Liberal party. He also threatened to sue Ezra Levant after Kinsella's role of advising the Canadian Islamic Congress on how to handle Macleans (they were sueing Macleans for "hate speech" was posted on Levant's blog.

Harper has used the courts as well to sue for everything and anything. In many cases he has lost. However, that might not have been the point of the lawsuits. The lawsuits might have been shut down discussion using legal means.

Kinsella was also the guy who pressured Public Works to appoint Chuck Guite to run the Liberals' new "sponsorship program". He has never admitted the Liberals did anything wrong, was a vocal, even fanatic defender of Jean Chretien, attacked the Gomery Commision, and, if any man does, represents Liberals sleaze and arrogance.

All true. However, the lawsuit generally means that further attacks on Kinsella can't be made because that is what the Ethics Commissioner said when Liberals were being sued.

It's telling that Ignatieff has appointed a man like this to run the Liberal war room. It shows that nothing is going to change under Ignatieff - except, of course, that the next election will be even dirtier than the last.

Given that Harper plans to run more personal attack ads, the Tories can hardly say their hands are clean. Nor can they say they are horrified about the lawsuits because that has been their tactic for many years.

[jdobbin]

Argus just proved my point. And I agree with everything he said about Kinsella.

And yet, my point is that the Tories won't be able to attack him publicly anymore because of what the Ethics Commissioner ruling.

[Argus]

Harper has used the courts as well to sue for everything and anything. In many cases he has lost.

Could you please provide a list of these many court cases he has lost?

Given that Harper plans to run more personal attack ads, the Tories can hardly say their hands are clean. Nor can they say they are horrified about the lawsuits because that has been their tactic for many years.

Please provide a list of the many vexatious lawsuits the Tories have launched over the years.

[Argus]

And yet, my point is that the Tories won't be able to attack him publicly anymore because of what the Ethics Commissioner ruling.

I doubt that. At worst, this particular minister might not be able to attack him in the house.

[jdobbin]

I doubt that. At worst, this particular minister might not be able to attack him in the house.

The Ethics Commisioner was pretty clear when he ruled that the Liberals could not be involved in issues wheres they were being sued. It won't be just the minister but the party as well.

I remember when Tories were crowing about the decision and I said this was just as likely to affect them as well.

Edited March 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Could you please provide a list of these many court cases he has lost?

Please provide a list of the many vexatious lawsuits the Tories have launched over the years.

I have provided those in the past and you have seen them. Have you forgotten already? Surely, you haven't fogotten Alan Riddell?

Surely, you have haven't forgotten how many court cases the Harper government has lost against the Wheat Board. My count is three now.

I guess we'll see how their court case against Elections Canada goes.

[Progressive Tory]

Given that Harper plans to run more personal attack ads, the Tories can hardly say their hands are clean. Nor can they say they are horrified about the lawsuits because that has been their tactic for many years.

Politics have sure gotten uglier the last few years. I heard Gail Shea bring up Warren Kinsella in the House of Commons the other day; though she was just caught using public funds to send out partisan attack ads, so I doubt she has much credibility. The Tories sure can pick 'em.

You're right about Harper using the courts everytime he gets in a tif, though. He should use Johnny Cash's 'My Name is Sue', as his theme song.

[Progressive Tory]

In Kinsella's case, I'm not sure it's even possible to do $1 million worth of damage to his reputation, and I say that as somebody who actually enjoys his blog.

It might be just a way of getting them to back off. I doubt he really expects to collect any money.

[waldo]

It's telling that Ignatieff has appointed a man like this to run the Liberal war room. It shows that nothing is going to change under Ignatieff - except, of course, that the next election will be even dirtier than the last.

other than you reading this 'war room' appointment notice in Ezra Levant's blog... is there confirmation elsewhere?

thought Mr. Kinsella is an unpaid volunteer at the moment - no?

apparently Mr. Kinsella has touched a few nerves over there at Blogging Tories hq - I trust he will keep the 'heat on' and continue to profile the likes of that disgraceful racist Kathy Shaidle @ fivefeetofbowelmovement.com ..... why, oh why, would the Harper government actually associate itself with Shaidle? Really... why?

[Argus]

I have provided those in the past and you have seen them. Have you forgotten already? Surely, you haven't fogotten Alan Riddell?

I believe Riddell was a failed candidate who had a dispute with the Conservative Party.

Surely, you have haven't forgotten how many court cases the Harper government has lost against the Wheat Board. My count is three now.

Governments occasionally have disputes with other governmental bodies which require the courts to interpret the law. That is a far cry from sueing people personally, as you suggested in your earlier post.

So then, Harper has not sued anyone unssucesfully, nor has the Tory party made a habit of sueing people.