Layton found nude in massage parlour!

[CANADIEN]

What he's doing goes far beyond opinion...and this isn't the US.

The celebrity of the victm should not be an excuse for libel.

Edited May 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

I don't consider a twitter post "putting something on the public record," which was my point. If the columnist wants to write about it in their media source, then it becomes "on the record" and there's an accountability standard/requirement that goes along with it. There is no accountability requirement, no standards assigned to a twitter post.

His name, and therefore his reputation, are attached to it. For somebody (like a politician, a celebrity, or in this case an author and journalist) whose reputation is vital to his livelihood, that's accountability enough. And as far as Canadian law is concerned, statements made on internet websites are as actionable as statements made on TV or in print.

There is a considerable number of politicians, celebrities, and athletes who have caused lasting harm to their reputations and even careers with controversial or poorly-thought-out statements in a variety of media, including Twitter. "It doesn't count, because I just said it on Twitter" never worked as an excuse. If you said it, you said it.

Consider, for example, former NDP candidate Malcolm Azania, who was haunted by what some said were anti-Jewish remarks that he wrote in UseNet postings back before most people had internet or even knew what it was.

Twitter is public record. Even UseNet posts from 20 years ago are public record. If you said it, you said it. Nobody accepts "well, it was just the internet so it doesn't count".

Do you think Jonathan Kay is lying? If not, why does it matter where he said it? If you do believe he's lying... why would it be any more believable if he wrote it in the newspaper?

-k

[TimG]

Here are some answers to questions people have been asking:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/30/18087896.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dbcbf1cb69d2e0e,1

The palour stopped operating after the raids (not something you expect from a legit place):

The massage parlour in the city's Chinatown neighbourhood, which ceased operations down shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges.

Seems to be that Jack would have to be awfly naive to not know what was going on.

[TimG]

The sun still didn't get it legally but they don't care.

The leak of the AG report on the G8 conference was illegal. I don't recall you getting upset about that illegality.

[Guest American Woman]

Here are some answers to questions people have been asking:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/30/18087896.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dbcbf1cb69d2e0e,1

The palour stopped operating after the raids (not something you expect from a legit place):

Seems to be that Jack would have to be awfly naive to not know what was going on.

From your article:

Despite the Velvet Touch being a "pretty active illicit" operation, no one at Toronto City Hall received any complaints about it, Mammoliti said.

"I've asked recently if anyone at City Hall had complained in 1996 and there were no complaints that came out of councillors, but police had their eye on it, and at the end of the day, shut it down," Mammoliti said.

Whether the place was legitimate or not isn't the issue; it's whether or not Layton knew about it and/or if he was there for something other than a massage. The fact that it ceased operation has nothing to do with that. He's not guilty by association, and that's the point. The idea that no one went there for a massage, that everyone who went there was going for sex purposes, has not been established. At all. People have run off with this story with pure speculation, drawing conclusions, making judgments, while the story is only that Layton went there for a massage, the place was under watch by the police, he says he didn't know anything illicit was going on, your article confirms that there were no complaints out of city hall, no complaints came out of councillors, yet he has been judged and hung.

[lukin]

Here are some answers to questions people have been asking:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/30/18087896.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dbcbf1cb69d2e0e,1

The palour stopped operating after the raids (not something you expect from a legit place):

Seems to be that Jack would have to be awfly naive to not know what was going on.

It's very interesting that this parlor was shut down after the raid. So many questions need to be answered here. More interesting details will follow. Thanks for the info Tim.

has anyone seen a picture of this parlour. Not the kind of place I would go to for health services.

Edited May 1, 2011 by lukin

[jbg]

.... yet he has been judged and hung.

The same thing happened to Senator Ensign, and Ted Kennedy, and Wilbur Mills. The fact is that when there's the opportunity and inclination for an illicit, extramarital affair the assumption is one happened.

Edited May 1, 2011 by jbg

[Roger Steele]

To me this is just someone trolling for a response. A total NON-ISSUE. For years I had a job that cycled from hours or days of desk work, then days of manual labor in a wood products plant. There were many times when a good massage was not only good for what ailed me it was recommended and prescribed by my family Physician. Over the years I have utilized over a half dozen therapists. Some male and some female. For full body massages it is common practice to remove all of your clothes then cover your private areas with towels. While there are some massage parlors that offer more personal services, the majority of them just do massages. Get your mind out of the gutter. If this is all you can find on Layton he must lead a pretty bland life.

[lukin]

Can anyone verify whether this brothel, or I mean "clinic" used the red light green light security system as has been mentioned in various news reports?

[CANADIEN]

To me this is just someone trolling for a response. A total NON-ISSUE. For years I had a job that cycled from hours or days of desk work, then days of manual labor in a wood products plant. There were many times when a good massage was not only good for what ailed me it was recommended and prescribed by my family Physician. Over the years I have utilized over a half dozen therapists. Some male and some female. For full body massages it is common practice to remove all of your clothes then cover your private areas with towels. While there are some massage parlors that offer more personal services, the majority of them just do massages. Get your mind out of the gutter. If this is all you can find on Layton he must lead a pretty bland life.

Makes me think of the cries of indignation every time it is mentioned that the Layton-Chow couple once lived in a full-market rent appartment in a housing co-operative. It's a very normal and recurring situation in mixed income co-ops, they were cleared of any wrongdoings, and it's over 20 year old, but some people keep insisting that it somehow proves that they are some kind of leeches who spit on the poor while pretending to be on their side.

Edited May 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Guest American Woman]

His name, and therefore his reputation, are attached to it. For somebody (like a politician, a celebrity, or in this case an author and journalist) whose reputation is vital to his livelihood, that's accountability enough. And as far as Canadian law is concerned, statements made on internet websites are as actionable as statements made on TV or in print.

A lawyer for the NDP issued a letter to Sun Media that threatened legal action if the allegations were printed in the company's newspapers. The story is already on Sun Media's website.

link

Whether the laws pertain to both or not, it's apparent that the printed word carries more weight. People are much more likely to go after the media for libel in print than they are on the internet. Print is there for life, articles/stories on the internet can be, and have been, pulled and/or corrections made with the original removed. There's a reason why Layton's lawyer threatened to sue if it went to press, and to my knowledge, it never did. Why not? (If anyone can show me/prove otherwise, I'd appreciate it.)

There is a considerable number of politicians, celebrities, and athletes who have caused lasting harm to their reputations and even careers with controversial or poorly-thought-out statements in a variety of media, including Twitter. "It doesn't count, because I just said it on Twitter" never worked as an excuse. If you said it, you said it.

I'm not denying that he said it, but it's not exactly something that can be proven or disproven. It's a conversation that the's having, no more, no less. There are no names mentioned, no proof of anything, and he doesn't have that 'burden' of proof for a tweet. If he were to go to print with the story, there would be questions of accountability, more professionalism, different standards applied. For example, he says: To repeat: I have no idea who leaked the Layton/massage story this time around. But, if had to *guess*, I'd say the most desperate party. Is that the kind of statement that he would go to press with? I would hope not. There's no journalistic integrity in making a guess as to who it was; it's purely an internet conversation, same as people here are "guessing" as to what the real story is.

A twitter is not the equivalent of a journalistic column or article, and should be taken as such.

Consider, for example, former NDP candidate Malcolm Azania, who was haunted by what some said were anti-Jewish remarks that he wrote in UseNet postings back before most people had internet or even knew what it was.

Twitter is public record. Even UseNet posts from 20 years ago are public record. If you said it, you said it. Nobody accepts "well, it was just the internet so it doesn't count".

As I said, the written word is still held up to more scrutiny. If Kay were writing a column/article about this, do you think it would simply consist of his tweets? Do you think it would get no more reaction/coverage than his tweets are? Why even have news outlets? Journalists can just tweet to their hearts' content, taking guesses as to questions that have been raised, and we can all take it as the news. Or do you see a problem with that?

This wasn't even an interview, with someone questioning what he was saying. With someone to counter what he's said. It was a tweet.

Do you think Jonathan Kay is lying? If not, why does it matter where he said it? If you do believe he's lying... why would it be any more believable if he wrote it in the newspaper?

I've already covered that above, but I will add; with a tweet, he has no one to answer to but himself. When it's in print, the newspaper has some say over what goes in it, as its reputation is on the line also. I believe what Kay would say in print in a newspaper and what he says in his tweets are two different things. I'm not saying he would have two different stories, I'm saying what he says in his tweets isn't necessarily something he'd go to press with.

[bjre]

Many laws are ridiculous.

Don't understand the purpose for those laws.

Just for lawyers and the legal industry to rob more money from tax payers?

[BubberMiley]

It's sad to see this thread start to drop off now that the only apparent result was a bump for the NDP and Layton's leadership numbers passing Harper's for the first time. Let's keep it going at least until tomorrow.

[bloodyminded]

edit: and yes to previous conversations the CBC is HUGELY biased to the left and always has been.

This claim is made a lot.

No one ever--ever--offers expansive, intelligence evidence for the claim; say, an actual, disinterested analysis, for example.

I 100% promise and guarantee that you will not do so, either.

[BubberMiley]

This claim is made a lot.

And when asked for examples, the best they can come up with is Krista Erickson, who now works for Sun TV.

[CANADIEN]

It's sad to see this thread start to drop off

On the contrary. good riddance with it... and that includes the unfounded (and illogical) claim that the Conservatives would have done something as counter-productive as being the one behind the story.

[Scotty]

Layton has nothing to gain by lying. She might.

Uh... Layton has nothing to gain by lying? Pardon?

[Moonbox]

It's sad to see this thread start to drop off now that the only apparent result was a bump for the NDP and Layton's leadership numbers passing Harper's for the first time. Let's keep it going at least until tomorrow.

Just wait Bubber. The NDP vote won't show up. The numbers you're seeing now won't even come close to materializing, and we'll all have a good laugh about it tomorrow.

[Smallc]

We'll just have to wait and see. The numbers may materialize, and they may not. We have no way of knowing that for sure.

[Scotty]

The Velvet Touch? Uhm, yeah that sounds like a legit outfit.

[Scotty]

This claim is made a lot.

No one ever--ever--offers expansive, intelligence evidence for the claim; say, an actual, disinterested analysis, for example.

I 100% promise and guarantee that you will not do so, either.

What sort of 'expansive, intelligent evidence' do you suppose individuals can produce in support of a theory on leftist bias in media?

[CANADIEN]

Uh... Layton has nothing to gain by lying? Pardon?

This is proving to be a non-issue. Quite frankly, most Canadians do not care about what happened there, and whether or not Layton is saying the truth about it. The issue will drop off the radar before long anyways.

[Moonbox]

We'll just have to wait and see. The numbers may materialize, and they may not. We have no way of knowing that for sure.

Just a lot of history and a lot of demographics to back up the assumption that they won't materialize.

TV and beer awaits at home. Why bother voting?

[Smallc]

Just a lot of history and a lot of demographics to back up the assumption that they won't materialize.

TV and beer awaits at home. Why bother voting?

You can't really apply past results to this. These numbers are rather unprecedented for the NDP, especially in Quebec.

[CANADIEN]

From your article:

Despite the Velvet Touch being a "pretty active illicit" operation, no one at Toronto City Hall received any complaints about it, Mammoliti said.

"I've asked recently if anyone at City Hall had complained in 1996 and there were no complaints that came out of councillors, but police had their eye on it, and at the end of the day, shut it down," Mammoliti said.

Whether the place was legitimate or not isn't the issue; it's whether or not Layton knew about it and/or if he was there for something other than a massage. The fact that it ceased operation has nothing to do with that. He's not guilty by association, and that's the point. The idea that no one went there for a massage, that everyone who went there was going for sex purposes, has not been established. At all. People have run off with this story with pure speculation, drawing conclusions, making judgments, while the story is only that Layton went there for a massage, the place was under watch by the police, he says he didn't know anything illicit was going on, your article confirms that there were no complaints out of city hall, no complaints came out of councillors, yet he has been judged and hung.

Hear hear