“Well, Warman has just sent me another letter, quite similar to the first. This one was written by a Toronto lawyer. You can see it here. It’s ten pages long, but most of that is simply rehashing several of my own blog posts. The rest of it is a mix of vanity, self-righteousness, hyper-sensitivity and plain old inaccuracies. There’s nothing wrong with that – it’s called politics, or the clash of ideas. But normally such self-congratulatory flatus is posted on a blog, not dressed up as a lawsuit.
“I’m a defamation lawyer myself, and if I had to sum up Canadian law in four words, it would be this: get your facts straight. If your facts are correct, you have the right to your opinions on those facts –- even extreme or radical opinions. So Warman’s complaint isn’t really a lawsuit. It’s a letter to the editor.
“And that’s the problem here. Warman is so used to operating in kangaroo courts — so used to human rights commissions that are run by non-lawyers, with arbitrary procedures, no fixed rules of evidence, no meaningful standards of guilt, where truth is not a defence and fair comment doesn’t exist — that he thinks he can take his Orwellian thinking out from the cloister of these star chambers into the real world. That’s my earlier point: I don’t think Warman even knows how ridiculous he looks.”
(…)
“If you think this is your battle too, and if you agree with me that crushing Warman’s lawsuit in a spectacular manner could change the law and make Canada more free, then please help…“
