April Fool's: Who's Laughing Now, NY Times?

Like it wasn't bad enough that our esteemed law blogger friend, Eric Turkewitz, punked the New York Times last April Fool's with his "news" of a pending Obama administration blogging appointment, thereby earning questionable question marks from at least one State ethics overseer:

Is an April Fool’s Day joke a violation of the lawyer’s duty of candor? Of course, context is everything. We can say with some certainty that the Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania has never been called upon to adjudicate an April Fool’s defense to a misrepresentation charge. We must note, however, that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania originally adopted the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 1, 1988. We should be very clear on this point: they weren’t kidding.

Well, the Times has (allegedly) been seriously snookered again this year. Perhaps that paywall thing isn't going over so well...

The dirty details are all laid bare at Andrew Barovick's New York Medical Malpractise Blog.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Sorry: the Web Is Not Public Domain

Recently, a writer's web-published (and appetite-inducing) article about apple pie was reprinted in Cooks Source magazine. The only problem was that the author hadn't given permission for the article's reproduction, so the author contacted the magazine and requested an apology and a small donation to the Columbia School of Journalism.

The editor's response is probably destined to become one of those Classic Internet Moments (tm):

But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!

A few points should be made here.

1.) The web isn't "public domain." It never has been, despite the availability of much public domain work on the web. In order for a work to fall into the public domain, the creator's intellectual property rights - generally copyright in the case of written works - have to be either expressly forfeited or must expire over time. "Putting it on the web" satisfies neither of these requirements.

2.) Although copyright can be registered, you don't need to register copyright for it to exist: you just need proof of original authorship, preferably with a date stamp. (Although it's fallen out of favour with the advent of better technology, mailing yourself a copy of a manuscript and then keeping the sealed letter is the classic "homemade" proof of copyright, since the postmark will date when the work was created.) In this case, the automatic date-stamps generated when the author created the web page are good enough.

3.) Even if the work was in the public domain - which it wasn't - the creator's moral rights would have remained intact, chief among which is the right to claim authorship of the work. This is elementary knowledge for anybody working in publishing, which is why the editor's suggestion that they would have been entirely justified if they chose to "put someone else's name on it" is shocking.

4.) Now, some might point out that a recipe cannot have copyright, as copyright does not protect lists of ingredients or sets of directions. However, copyright can protect the expression of the recipe if the expression is distinct enough, and certainly in this case the expression of the recipe as part of a larger non-fiction article qualifies for copyright.

5.) "Just because other people might offer you free labour doesn't mean everybody has to" should be one of those things that should be obvious as a matter of course, but apparently in this case it was not. Certainly the comments on Cooks Source' Facebook page is giving them a firm schooling in this regard.

- Christopher Bird, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

From An Employee Handbook in America

A mega-media company where management just wanted boys to be boys, I presume:

“Working at Tribune means accepting that you might hear a word that you, personally, might not use,” the new handbook warned. “You might experience an attitude you don’t share. You might hear a joke that you don’t consider funny. That is because a loose, fun, nonlinear atmosphere is important to the creative process.” It then added, “This should be understood, should not be a surprise and not considered harassment.”

Apparently the lawsuits that followed didn't turn out quite the way the old boys had hoped.

(via Atrios)

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

NHL Backs Down on Barring Bloggers

The National Hockey League has backed off a previously-leaked draft policy that would have barred sports bloggers from its club dressing rooms and arena press boxes. The league has opted, instead, to continue its current practice of letting each team decide for itself on the issue.

Money quote from today's New York Times coverage:

At the heart of the discussion is a complex — and often strident — debate about the role of bloggers, conflicting views among the teams about the ways to cater to their fans and the challenge of fashioning new guidelines for sports media that, as Brown put it, is “morphing at warp speed.”

Canadian teams are described as among the "hawks" on the issue, remaining largely disinclined to open access to the hockey blogs.

Oh, and by the way, the Leafs beat Detroit 4-2 in Saturday night pre-season play, avenging an embarrassing 7-3 loss on Friday.

Finally, my last hockey note - a bit of wishful thinking in La Belle Province: Quebec City NHL rally draws thousands

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Thomson Reuters Acquires Canada Law Book

In a development that will shock many in Canada's venerable legal publication industry, Thomson Reuters today announced that it has acquired Canada Law Book.

A Thomson Reuters press release tells the tale:

Toronto, Canada, Aug. 4, 2010 – Thomson Reuters today announced the acquisition of Canada Law Book, a division of the Cartwright Group Limited. Canada Law Book will be aligned with Carswell, a Thomson Reuters business headquartered in Toronto. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.  

Canada Law Book produces publications across 36 topics of legal information, and is known for having high editorial standards, as well as authors who are among Canada’s most prominent legal scholars. 

...Carswell and Canada Law Book each brings more than 100 years of legal tradition and expertise to customers, and together provide the recognised excellence, integrity and highest editorial standards that ensure legal practitioners, judges and academics receive the most comprehensive materials for their practise.

With the nation's two leading legal publishers now about to operate under one roof, one wonders whether the end result will be fewer legal publications, fewer writers being published, and the bottom lines playing a more decisive role than ever in determining the materials that are ultimately made available to the legal profession.

And needless to say, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if,  not so long from now, another press release announces that these two publishers have been folded into one. 

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

To Ban or Legalize?

Ban or Legalize - an interesting new series that consults Canada's experts on a slew of controversial issues in Canadian law reform.

Here's how this the series introduces itself.

Ban/Legalize: 13 Proposed Changes to Canadian Law

Should Canada ban the niqab? Legalize file-sharing? Ban bars? Decriminalize pot?

A society is shaped by what its laws permit or prohibit. With that in mind, we asked legislators and artists, activists and entrepreneurs to identify one thing that should be banned or legalized but currently is not.

Thanks to Cathy Li of The Mark for bringing it to our attention.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

That April Foolin' New York Personal Injury Lawyer

I confess that for a brief moment, I was fooled too.

When our blawger friend, Eric Turkewitz of the New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog announced his appointment last week as "official White House law blogger,“ my instant immediate reaction was 'wow, that's cool - I know that guy!'

Mr. Turkewitz' announcement was unusually (for him) understated, well in keeping with the solemnity of the moment:

Since word is already dribbling out among my friends, I thought I should let you know here: I'm closing down this blog in the next few weeks to start up a new one at the White House as their official law blogger. I'll have the opportunity to both expand the scope of my writing and serve my country at the same time. As blogging gigs go, it doesn't get any better than that.

Here's the back story....

Then, I noticed the date - April 1, 2010 - and like most readers, was fooled no more.

The New York Times Cityroom Blog, however, did not exercise these basic deductive processes, and apparently, kinda-sorta took the bait.

Here's the Times' "correction:"

[Note: an earlier version of this column had an item about a blog post by a personal-injury lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, announcing that he had been appointed the White House law blogger. Blogospheric chatter indicates a high likelihood that this post was an April Fool hoax. Mr. Turkewitz declined to give us a straight answer on this score, so, pending callback from the White House, we've taken the item down.]

Nicely done, Eric.

(I may be seeing you soon.

I'm considering a run for Mayor of New York as a Tea Party candidate).

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Update: April 6, 2010

Some people just can't take a joke: Lawyer Says April Fool’s Joke Was Not an Ethics Violation

- GJW

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Fox News or the 700 Club?

You be the judge:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Supreme Court of Canada To Bloggers: Act Responsibly

The Supreme Court of Canada explicitly addressed bloggers in two companion decisions yesterday that may well have revolutionized Canada's libel law landscape by adopting a new "responsible journalism" defence into Canada's common law.

Chief Justice McLachlin articulated the new rules of the road - for bloggers and traditional journalists, alike - in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 6:

[62 ...The press and others engaged in public communication on matters of public interest, like bloggers, must act carefully, having regard to the injury to reputation that a false statement can cause. A defence based on responsible conduct reflects the social concern that the media should be held accountable through the law of defamation. As Kirby P. stated in Ballina Shire Council v. Ringland (1994), 33 N.S.W.L.R. 680 (C.A.), at p. 700: “The law of defamation is one of the comparatively few checks upon [the media’s] great power”. The requirement that the publisher of defamatory material act responsibly provides accountability and comports with the reasonable expectations of those whose conduct brings them within the sphere of public interest. People in public life are entitled to expect that the media and other reporters will act responsibly in protecting them from false accusations and innuendo. They are not, however, entitled to demand perfection and the inevitable silencing of critical comment that a standard of perfection would impose. (emphasis added)

This appears to be the first time the Court has directly addressed Canada's bloggers, although a CanLII search did disclose one previous reference to blogs by the court. See its June 2008 ruling in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420:

[73] This is all the more true in an age when the public is exposed to an astounding quantity and variety of commentaries on issues of public interest, ranging from political debate in the House of Commons, to newspaper editorials, to comedians’ satire, to a high school student’s blog. It would quite simply be wrong to assume that the public always takes statements of opinion at face value. Rather, members of the public must be presumed to evaluate comments in accordance with their own knowledge and opinions about the speaker and the subject of the comments. (emphasis added)

Thus, it appears that from the vantage point of the Supreme Court, Canada's archetypal blogger has now, finally and gratefully, moved beyond high school.

Happy graduation.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Update:

Also see James Morton and Warren Kinsella on these SCC rulings.

- GJW

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Supreme Court of Canada: "Responsble Journalism" is a Defence to Libel Action

In two groundbreaking decisions today, the Supreme Court of Canada has expanded free speech protections for journalists and new media writers by affirming a new, responsible journalism defence in libel actions.

In Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62, a unanimous court held:

The defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest recognized in Grant v. Torstar Corp. is applicable where the publication is on a matter of public interest and, having regard to the relevant factors, the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegations. The public interest test is clearly met here, as the Canadian public has a vital interest in knowing about the professional misdeeds of those who are entrusted by the state with protecting public safety. The defendants’ liability therefore hinges on whether they were diligent in trying to verify the allegations prior to publication, and it will be for the jury at a new trial to decide whether the articles met this standard of responsibility.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's ruling emphasizes that while it may not be necessary for journalists to get every single fact correct in order to escape liability for libel, a heavy onus will remain upon them to establish diligent efforts to verify information that is published:

A. The Defence of Responsible Communication on Matters of Public Importance

[28] In Grant, at para. 126, we hold that the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest applies where:

A) The publication is on a matter of public interest, and

B) The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:

a) the seriousness of the allegation;

b) the public importance of the matter;

c) the urgency of the matter;

d) the status and reliability of the source;

e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;

f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;

g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and

h) any other relevant circumstances.

... [31] ...The Canadian public has a vital interest in knowing about the professional misdeeds of those who are entrusted by the state with protecting public safety. While the subject of the Ottawa Citizen articles was not political in the narrow sense, the articles touched on matters close to the core of the public’s legitimate concern with the integrity of its public service. When Cst. Cusson represented himself to the New York authorities and the media as an OPP or RCMP officer, he sacrificed any claim to be engaged in a purely private matter. News of his heroism was already a matter of public record; there is no reason that legitimate questions about the validity of this impression should not have been publicized too.

[32] That being the case, the defendants’ liability hinges on whether they were diligent in trying to verify the allegations prior to publication. As explained below, it will be for the jury at a new trial to decide whether the articles met the standard of responsibility articulated in Grant. Further evidence of the steps taken by Quan and Egan may have to be adduced in order to provide a satisfactory record upon which their conduct can be judged.

Also see the Court's ruling today in the companion case of Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (CanLII), 2009 SCC 6, referenced in the Cusson decision.

National Post comments on these important rulings:

Journalists or Internet bloggers who are sued for libel or slander will no longer have to prove in court the absolute truth of every allegation in a report. Instead, they can rely on the new defence if the issue is of public importance and they took proper steps to verify the information.

The court said Canada's defamation law must better balance freedom of expression against the need to protect a person's reputation and privacy.

..."I conclude that the current law, with respect to statements that are reliable and important to the public debate, does not give adequate weight to the constitutional value of free expression," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the unanimous decision.

The new defence will not give free license for journalists to make mistakes. They will still have to show they acted responsibly in their reporting on public interest issues.

..Once a judge establishes a public interest, the responsibility of the reporting must be tested based on eight factors set out by the Court, including the seriousness of the allegation, the trustworthiness of the source, the urgency of the issue and the attempts taken to obtain a response from the subject of story.

For further reading, see our November 14, 2007 post on the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in Cusson: Ontario Appeal Court: Press Has "Public Interest Responsible Journalism" Defence to Libel.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Washington Post's New Social Media Guidelines for Journalists

The Washington Post clamps down on perceived journalistic "bias" in social media postings:

The new guidelines address the “perception problem...” A key section reads:

“When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”

Another section reads: “What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account. It is possible to use privacy controls online to limit access to sensitive information. But such controls are only a deterrent, not an absolute insulator. Reality is simple: If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.”

It continues: “Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

America's 50 Most Influential Pundits

The AtlanticWire has now unveiled its list of the opinion-makers it contends are America's 50 most influential columnists, bloggers and talking heads.

Topping the list:

1. Paul Krugman
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. George Will
4. Thomas Friedman
5. David Brooks
6. Charles Krauthammer
7. Glen Beck
8. Frank Rich
9. Andrew Sullivan
10. Karl Rove

Lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald ranked at number 22.

I'm not sure these lists ever mean anything, but this one is as telling in its glaring omissions, love 'em or not - Markos Moulitsas, Michelle Malkin, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough jump quickly to mind - as its inclusions.

See the whole listing: The Atlantic 50.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

The World We Live In

Associated Press, on Iran, international attention spans and the real world - as revealed by the modern news cyle:

As the protests dwindle amid intensifying official pressure, the opposition may suffer from a decline in international attention. The protests and violence dominated Western news broadcasts for nearly two weeks, with the reports substantially bolstered by videos gleaned from Internet sites and by commentary from social networking sites.

Such sites were a key pipeline for the opposition amid the tight restrictions on foreign media in the country.

But along with the diminished action on the streets in Iran, other stories have arisen to siphon away attention — especially the death of pop star Michael Jackson.

Television coverage of Iran's turmoil has fallen since Jackson's death Thursday; on the Twitter micro-blogging site, Iran remained among the most discussed topics, but fell below Jackson and comments about the movie "Transformers 2.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Ontario Court Permits Twitter, Live-Blogging from O'Brien Hearing

Web 2.0 took another giant step toward respectability - and functionality - in Ontario's courts yesterday, with the decision of an Ontario Superior Court judge to permit members of the media to provide real-time reporting on a trial-in-progress - using Twitter.

Via Michael Geist:

The judge presiding over the criminal trial of Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien has blocked the use of television cameras, but given the go-ahead for live blogging and the use of Twitter.

Canadian Press has more:

Judge Douglas Cunningham... shot down the CBC's bid to have cameras follow the trial in real time, but agreed to a bid by Canwest News Service to have a reporter file instantly to a popular social networking site from within the courtroom. The judge's ruling effectively opens the gates to all media at O'Brien's trial to file real-time text stories by wireless device.

..."What we are talking about here is instant text transmission to the blogosphere, but that is the world in which we live," said Cunningham.

..."I ... recognize that some private information or protected information could inappropriately be disclosed," said the judge.

"But I'm afraid that's a risk I'll have to take, recognizing as I do the calibre of counsel I have before me in this case."

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Press Scrutiny of Family Courts

From an editorial in today's Globe and Mail:

If Canadians could cram en masse into the bitter courtrooms where child-custody disputes play out, there might be fewer nasty divorces. Since they can't, they should be allowed to read about them, which is why an Ontario judge was right to reject a request from the provincial Office of the Children's Lawyer for a gag order on the lawyers and family members in a notorious case of "parental alienation syndrome." A cautionary tale that no one can hear is not much good to anyone.

...All Canadians have an interest in making sure that the children of high-conflict divorce are protected, and that those charged with protecting them, including the courts and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, do good, and not harm. That is why the courts are open. The freedom of the press belongs not only to the media, but to all Canadians.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

British Press Floods Family Courts, Newly Opened to Media

As noted last week, effective today, British media has new-found access to the nation's Family Courts, which had previously been closed to the press.

Times Online obliges with a series of reports from various Family Courts throughout the U.K., including coverage from Central London,  Cardiff,  Manchester, Bath , and this report on a child welfare matter from Haringey Family Court:

If judges and court staff were ready for what has been hailed as a revolution in the family courts, lawyers at Barnet’s Civil and Family Court Centre were slightly taken by surprise by the arrival of the media.

Two cases had to be adjourned while lawyers discussed whether to oppose the admittance of The Times, but both, in the end, agreed — realising that stringent reporting restrictions remain in place.

After decades of holding such hearings behind closed doors, no one quite knew what to do. John Tughan, counsel for Haringey — the local authority where Baby P died — at least had on him the guidance on admitting the media just issued by Britain’s most senior judge.

But he confessed to Judge Marcia Levy: “I don’t know what our position is . . . I simply don’t know. I was asking for ten minutes to take instructions from the team manager.”

The judge, who was preparing to give an hour-long judgment in a case involving two young children, said that neither their names, nor those of other children involved, could be mentioned; nor those of the parents, nor schools, places or anyone else connected with them that would enable them to be identified.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Quotable

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat:

Stuart Taylor, along with his Newsweek accomplice Evan Thomas, famously urged President Obama to do what Dick Cheney did on torture. What is it about these people? Are they so afraid that they insist on the United States following them into depravity and war crimes? Of course today they, like much of the Village, excuse a policy of war crimes - but when it came to private conduct of President Clinton, they wanted the President removed from office. There has been no contrast more demonstrative of the utter depravity and banality of the Media than this.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

'Free at Last:' Canadian Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaints Against Mark Steyn, Macleans Magazine

This Globe and Mail report will come as no surprise:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed a complaint against Maclean's magazine over a controversial article on the future of Islam, magazine officials said yesterday.

Meanwhile, a decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal over the same issue isn't expected for several months.

The Canadian Islamic Congress launched the dual complaints over an article by Maclean's journalist Mark Steyn. The article, The Future Belongs to Islam, came under fire by Muslim critics who claimed it spreads Islamophobia.

Earlier this month, closing arguments were made before B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal over the article, which appeared in Maclean's in October, 2006.

In dismissing the complaint, the Commission stated:

Overall, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal.

For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

The full text of the CHRC decision is now online: Canadian Islamic Congress v. Rogers Media Inc.

For more discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the John Ross Taylor case referenced in the CHRC ruling, see our December 17, 2007 post, Mark Steyn, Macleans and Canadian Human Rights.

We've written much previously on this complaint, and have little to add to our original commentary, also of December 17, 2007:

For the record, then, let me state the obvious:

• These are merely complaints, and have not yet been adjudicated;
• Allegations such as these will not necessarily be substantiated through the complaint processes or at a hearing;
• Our press also has broad freedoms and protection in Canada - these will weigh heavily in the balance of any tribunal determination of these complaints.
• If the complaints are weak or frivolous, they are not likely to have any success at all. The complainants nonetheless have the right to be heard. That is how our judicial processes work and that too, is a freedom worth protecting.

For additional commentary on the fallout of this dismissal, see:

• Martyrdom denied, part deux - Dawg's Blog
• Canadian Human Rights Commission denies Steyn martyrdom -The Galloping Beaver
• Macleans Magazine Loses Its CHRC Complaint - Big City Lib
• Maclean's responds to recent decision from the Canadian Human Rights Commission - CNW Press Release
• Islamic Congress responds to Canadian Human Rights Commission's decision on human rights complaint filed against Maclean's - CNW Press Release

For what's it's worth, Mr Steyn assures his readers that victory notwithstanding, the campaign to restore free speech to Canada will continue, unabated.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

On Olbermann

From a fascinating and insightful profile of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann by Peter J. Boyer in the New Yorker:

The Olbermann-O’Reilly feud, which is wholly Olbermann’s creation, began with a wisecrack in 2003, the first year of “Countdown.” It evolved after Olbermann instituted a farcical segment called “The Worst Person in the World,” in which O’Reilly, depicted as a pompous buffoon, was regularly cited. O’Reilly, the biggest draw of the highest-rated cable-news network, could only lose by engaging with Olbermann, but he could not resist. Refusing to mention Olbermann by name, he sponsored a petition drive to have him replaced, and eventually began to aim on-air broadsides against NBC’s parent company, General Electric, and its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt. “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt,” O’Reilly asserted in April, citing G.E.’s business relationship with Iran. (The company began phasing out its contracts there in 2005.) This only encouraged Olbermann, who subjected Bill-O (as Olbermann calls him) to near-daily barrages of acid caricature. Instead of using video clips of O’Reilly for his routines, Olbermann began voicing O’Reilly’s words himself, in a demonic mimicry of the Ted Baxter character on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

See: One Angry Man: Is Keith Olbermann changing TV news?

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

"Obama Rules" Broken

In a prior post, Garry Wise outlined his “Obama Rules” - the playbook for Obama supporters and much of the American media covering the race for the Democratic presidential nomination between Senator Hilary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama:

Rule 1:

Every word Barack Obama (or any one of his supporters) shall utter shall be deemed to be historic, monumental and as pronouncing a self-evident, higher truth never before heard.

Rule 2:

Every word uttered by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton (or any other supporter of the Clinton campaign) shall be deemed to be controversial, divisive and solely driven by a shameless desire for political gain, at any cost.

After a particular comment made by Senator Barack last week, however, it appears (mercifully) that some rules are just meant to be broken.

CNN reports:

Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday tried to clarify what he meant when he said some small-town Pennsylvanians are "bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion."

Sen. Barack Obama told a newspaper if he offended anyone, he deeply regrets it.

I didn't say it as well as I should have," Obama admitted in Muncie, Indiana, on Saturday, the day after he first defended his comments, "because the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation -- those are important." The Illinois senator made the controversial comments at a California event that was closed to the media last Sunday.

Obama defended his point of view amid intensified criticism from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain that's he's elitist and out of touch.

The following is Mr. Obama's controversial remark:

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

- Annie Noa Kenet, Toronto

........

Update - April 13, 2008:

With their usual lightning-speed, Mr. Obama's supporters have now responded to the controversy. See: Bitter Voters for Obama.

I've also added my own 2.5 cents to this discussion. See: Haircuts, Drivers' Licences, Bitterness and Hypocrisy

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG