Saipan Posted May 14, 2011 Report Posted May 14, 2011 That is an interesting point of law I wasn't aware of. This appears not to be true in the US, given some suits I am aware of. Same (almost) in the US. The National Enquirer is full of such manure but they are not sued. Unless someone goes to the extreme. Quote
Hydraboss Posted May 14, 2011 Report Posted May 14, 2011 Actually since he was not charged and convicted you may be sued for libel or slander so tread carefully. If any newspaper or radio or tv station(publication) made such a comment they deffinetely would be! WWWTT Nope. I cannot be sued (successfully) on this. His name IS John Layton. It's his legal, given name. Use of the word "the" was the poster I quoted. Sun Media ran the story quoting the Toronto cop. I corrected his legal, given name in the previous poster's quote. Go ahead. Report the post to Das Commandant. Please. Please. See where it gets you. You really are special, aren't you? Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Saipan Posted May 14, 2011 Report Posted May 14, 2011 Did Harper try to stop this? Did he come out and say he will disregard this ruling and open the books? I can just hear the loud squeel from the left if Harper disregarded the Supreme Court of Canada. Quote
WWWTT Posted May 15, 2011 Author Report Posted May 15, 2011 Are you suggesting the Prime Minister has the power to interfere with the Supreme Court? The books are open. This ruling is in regard to meetings, not departmental budgets. Your claim that the PM and cabinet ministers are now free to spend and spend is ridiculous. Their expenses will continue to be audited by the Auditor General's department, as they always have. This ruling means that we as the public don't have the right to be a fly on the wall every time members of the government meet in private. Personally, I'm in favor. I want our elected officials to be able to sit and discuss issues with complete candor without fear of some comment being turned into a soundbite that will be used against them regardless of whether it's true or accurate. Do you also mean all those attack adds the conservatives use of their opponents using old audio recordings and film footage out of context? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted May 15, 2011 Author Report Posted May 15, 2011 When comments are made while sitting in the house of commons,the person making those comments against anybody can not be sued! This is the law. However when comments are made outside it is another story. Most major newspapers and broadcasters have bein successfuly sued! I do not need to prove this to anyone here,nor do I have the time. Ignorance of the law is not any excuse and it is not my job to help anyone here! I am not saying I know of all the cases and the judgements handed down but I know that defamation and libel suits are not uncommon. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Hydraboss Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) ... This is the law. ... I am not saying I know of all the cases and the judgements handed down but I know that defamation and libel suits are not uncommon. WWWTT Well genius, please feel free to point out what I will be "sued" for. Come on - you had to exercise your mouth, know-it-all. Come on and share. We'll wait mouthpiece. [sp] Edited May 15, 2011 by Hydraboss Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
dre Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Same (almost) in the US. The National Enquirer is full of such manure but they are not sued. Unless someone goes to the extreme. Do you even spend a single second thinking about what you post? The National Enquirer has been sued LOTS of times. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 In the interest of accuracy, it should be pointed out that this was a decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, not by Stephen Harper or Parliament. It should also be pointed out that this case has been in the works for 10 years, as a result of attempts to get notes from Secret PMO Meetings held by Jean Chretien. Spinning it like this is something that happened because Harper won a majority 2 weeks ago is just plain dishonest. -k No it's not, Harper could have negated the need for the ruling years ago by bringing in a real Transparency Act but he didn't. He could open all the doors and books with a nod and a wave of his hand tomorrow but he won't. Our civil liberties likewise become increasingly more limited as successive governments keep piling on things they can do in the name of protecting us or the economy or of course themselves. Worst of all is how an opposition's fear of appearing soft on whatever it is the party in power is beating the drum to crack down on concretizes fear and loathing into legislation. We live in a doe-see-doe state of mutually assured dictatorship no matter what ideology is in power. They're partners and all dancing to the same self-serving beat. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
RNG Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Am I the only one here who thinks there are things happening that it would be dangerous or counter-productive to have plastered across the popular press. What would have happened if Obama had been forced to list each and every new bit of information in the search for OBL? Yes, an extreme example, but still valid. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Saipan Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 The National Enquirer has been sued LOTS of times. Lot of times is in the eye of a beerholder. Quote
Saipan Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 No it's not, Harper could have negated the need for the ruling years ago by bringing in a real Transparency Act Transparent enough to satisfy Taliban, Chinese, and North Koreans? Quote
RNG Posted May 15, 2011 Report Posted May 15, 2011 Lot of times is in the eye of a beerholder. I hope that wasn't a typo. If you tell me it wasn't, I'll nominate you for poster of the year. In the eye of the beerholder.:) Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
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.