Northman's Fury

I don't know if the terrorist are chortling, but I know I am.

What kind of moron would think bin Laden is horribly concerned about the fate of a bunch of cheap, Chinese-made magnetic ribbons?  Well, now that you ask.

To imply that to wear a poppy and not allow magnetic ribbons is somehow hypocritical is also pretty laughable.  The poppy is to remember the fallen, the yellow ribbon was once intended to act as a signal wishing for the safe return of soldiers, but with the attached “Support the Troops” slogan, they’re now more part of a partisan campaign that implies like Mr. Jackson does, that the only way to support the troops is to give control of their fate over to the Harper government.

Harper at least appears to be intelligent, if manipulative, controlling, and secretive. Jackson's column is little more than talking points and hatred wrapped up in vitriol to smear his opponents as terror supporters. He'd have to rise several levels to get to shameful, and despite that I'm sure he doesn't have the good sense to be embarrassed about his efforts.

His column does leave me ashamed and embarrassed. Not for him, but for the rest of us, because his column represents what now passes for political discourse in this country.

No surprise here, the evidence was piling up pretty heavily to point this way.

Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence.

. . .

Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.

Yeah, watch the video and see how well these three guys "blend". Refusing to throw objects but carrying rocks towards the police line while wearing masks and fatigues? Let's just say their credibility isn't all that high right now.

Via Saskboy, (whose blog for some reason won't allow my comments.)



There's two things about the story that leap out. The first is the implication that there are unscrupulous individuals using the court system to sue people just to silence critics, hoping that the nuisance or expense of defending against charges of libel will be too much for most bloggers to be capable of fighting back.

I can't say much about that. I know there are some methods to have cases dismissed as frivolous without causing too much of a drain on the person being sued. To argue that such laws should be strengthened and damages for bringing them should be incurred to stop wealthy types from using them to silence poorer critics ignores the fact that doing so would almost certainly also have the effect of preventing poorer victims from suing for damages and risking financial destruction if the case goes against them.

The second point is the one where Canadian law appears to need serious improvement. The fact is that there are folks out on the internet who do post libelous attacks, and I have little problem with seeing such people punished. The issue raised by this story though, is how far the responsibility for such posts goes in our legal system.

If I write something libelous on my blog, I can understand that I may be sued for posting it. Personal responsibility is a value I take seriously. On the other hand, if somebody posts a comment on my blog that is libelous, do I now become responsible for it? To my mind, the responsibility lies with the author, but thanks to anonymous posts; finding the responsible actor could be difficult. Can you be sued merely because you allow open comments?

And the story seems to indicate that the line of libel suits may go far beyond that point. I've linked to Saskboy's post. If he has something libelous in it, or someone posts something libelous in his comments section, do I get nailed because I've highlighted the post? If I send this over to E-Group as I do some of my posts, do they also become liable? How about the companies who host our respective blogs? Is there a difference between the post itself and the comments it generates? What about if I link and talk about a small piece of a long post that contains a libelous statement in another section?

What about blog aggregators? The CBC itself has a blogwatch that shows links to blogs that are talking about CBC stories. Will they find themselves sued because they've driven traffic to posts containing libelous content?

Enough rambling. Suffice to say it seems pretty clear that the law surrounding this issue need to be updated.