[Section 15] Al Gore wins Nobel Peace prize

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace prize, shared with the IPCC.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change....

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control.

Congrats! This was well-deserved.

Meanwhile, there's some curiously-timed news kicking about that some judge cited nine errors with Al Gore's inconvenient truth.

The judge did not find that there were nine errors!

The judge identified nine issues raised by a plaintiff, who was trying to prevent the documentary from being shown in schools.

The plaintiff lost.

See Deltoid for an excellent factual rebuttal.

Is it a coincidence that a judge's findings are widely being misquoted at the same time it's been announced that Al Gore has won the prize?

Just wondering.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/12/2007 07:25:00 AM

[Section 15] One of Crookes' lawsuits dismissed

Wayne Crookes' lawsuit against Yahoo has been dismissed. You may recall that I am a defendant in one of his cases.

Michael Geist covered it the other day, and now CBC has it up on their website.

I have the actual ruling.

Now, Crookes has many lawsuits out there, and this is just a section of one of them, albeit one of the more significant.

What the judge found, in granting a motion by Yahoo, was that there was no evidence that a third party in BC actually saw any of the material Crookes claims to be libelous. In making this positive ruling, the judge recognized that the Yahoo group in question (GPC-Members) was a closed, private group, the contents of which are not visible to non-members. As such, without evidence that a BC-based subscriber read the material, Crookes had no case to bring the suit in BC.

What else I found interesting was something else the judge had to say, in section 16. You'll need to read some sections beforehand to get the gist:

[12] On August 4, 2006, Mr. Crookes emailed Yahoo about three postings on the GPC-Members website that defamed him and demanded that Yahoo remove these postings. That same day, following an exchange of emails and Mr. Crookes providing Yahoo with the necessary, detailed information required by Yahoo to deal with Mr. Crookes' concerns, a copy of the full headers and the message, Yahoo removed the postings. Yahoo asked Mr. Crookes to notify it of any further questionable content he found in Yahoo! Groups. Mr. Crookes was satisfied with Yahoo's prompt response and thanked Yahoo for its assistance.

[13] The statement of claim alleges that later in August 2006 the impugned postings were reposted with other allegedly defamatory material. Instead of following his previously successful method of complaint by email, Mr. Crookes claims that on December 8, 2006, he had his lawyer send a "legal letter" by fax and courier addressed to "Sir/Madam" at Yahoo! Inc. Mr. Crookes' counsel complained that Mr. Crookes "has not received your ongoing diligence in making certain that this website does not either repost the libellous comments or post equally venomous remarks". Mr. Crookes' counsel requested Yahoo "shut down this site and in its place, post an apology for the libellous comments made about him, which the moderators have, to date either reposted, ignored, and sometimes even republished with commentary". The letter did not provide the information that Yahoo had previously told Mr. Crookes it needed in order to take steps to deal with questionable material; that is, a copy of the full headers and the impugned messages.

[14] A receipt of confirmation was requested in the letter. There was no receipt of confirmation. No effort was made by Mr. Crookes or his lawyer to ascertain if Yahoo received the letter.

[15] Yahoo claims it has been unable to locate this letter in its correspondence records. In addition, no effort was made to ascertain the appropriate individual, or even the appropriate department, who should receive such a letter. No effort was made to correspond with Yahoo by email, as Mr. Crookes had done, successfully, in the past. Instead of following up with Yahoo, Mr. Crookes commenced this action against Yahoo on March 2, 2007.

[16] Plaintiffs' counsel argues knowledge can be imputed to Yahoo based on counsel's letter which was faxed, and then couriered and signed for by "K. Kerins". However, the manner in which counsel contacted Yahoo, having regard to Mr. Crookes' prior email contact with Yahoo, which was successful in having the impugned postings removed efficiently, raises suspicions and concerns.

We'll see if he appeals. He has less than 30 days now to do so.

I'll save my further comments until after that deadline.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/07/2007 10:45:00 PM

[Section 15] Iraqi government is in collapse

The world's most expensive and bloodiest experiment in imposed democracy is on the skids, says a formal Congressional Research Report, secured by Raw Story from the Daily News.

The original report is here: (PDF).

"My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse," Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report, said, according to Meek. "That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation."

(Meek wrote the piece for the Daily News.)

Without a secure political climate, any military successes will not last. Which is not to say that the report is critical of the idea that there are currently any military successes.

Bush got his way, and he has failed.

*Worst. President. Ever.*

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/07/2007 12:33:00 PM

[Section 15] CBC host libel chill story on their site

CBC had the libel chill news story (starring moi among others) removed from YouTube (but left thousands of other CBC videos there); however, the piece has now been posted on CBC's site.

See http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/crimejustice/bloggers_beware.html

Geist's public complaint about it seems to have been noticed.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/05/2007 09:29:00 PM

[Section 15] How our libel law allowed the torture of children

Ontario's Grenville Christian College was a place where children were "emotionally, spiritually and sometimes physically [abused]" says a piece in today's Globe and Mail:

Joan Childs, who worked at the school for more than 30 years, posted a public apology on an Internet message board that former students have been using for more than a year to talk about what they experienced and suffered.

"What was done to people at GCC was very wrong," Ms. Childs wrote. "I was very wrong. And I am so sorry for all the hurt that was caused to each of you by me and by all of us in positions of leadership."

Former students have described a bizarre environment where they were hauled from their beds in the middle of the night to be harangued for hours by staff at so-called light sessions about being sinners.

Read the piece for more info.

What really caught my eye was a related piece, Brockville's local paper was advised not to publish abuse allegations which shockingly tells us that the local Brockville newspaper knew of these abuses, and had a story ready to print about it 20 years ago, but pulled back when witnesses suddenly retracted permission to use their names. At the exact same time, the newspaper received a letter from a major Toronto law firm threatening libel action if the article was printed.

So the story was never published.

Our libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant, and assume that any defamation causes damage. The plaintiff merely has to claim that the published allegations are false, and it's up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Without the people willing to come forward -- and one wonders given the timing of things if there wasn't a connection between the witnesses withdrawing and the libel chill letter arriving -- the paper had little choice but to not publish.

And so the abuse went on for years more.

Many other Western jurisdictions have since reformed these ancient laws to properly place the onus upon the plaintiff, and to require proof of damage. All, except Canada, have reformed libel law to grant special protection for those commenting on matters of public interest. Some jurisdictions, like California and 23 other US states, have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) provisions allowing for vexatious or nuisance libel lawsuits to be easily thrown out and the plaintiffs penalized.

Quebec is currently considering updating their Code of Civil Procedure to penalize those launching anti-SLAPP suits (see here). New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are currently considering such laws as well. (I will be writing about all this soon enough).

Had such protection been around 20 years ago, would the abuse have continued? Would the witnesses have been less afraid to come forward?

Anti-SLAPP provisions need to be in place in every province in Canada.

Many defendants, including myself, are currently fighting libel claims filed in British Columbia by Wayne Crookes. You can read more about it here, and visit LibelChill.ca (still under development) for more.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 9/01/2007 03:35:00 PM

[Section 15] I've applied to Liblogs

I've finally left both the federal Green Party and the Green Party of Ontario and have joined the federal and Ontario Liberal parties.

For the first part of my reason to do so, please go and read this post.

(I've promised a Part 2, but have been very busy. I may post a shorter version of what I intended.)

I look forward to working within these parties, and hope we can all work together to develop a better Canada and a better world.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 8/31/2007 12:44:00 PM

[Section 15] My CBC interview: How libel chill and Crooke's lawsuits threaten...

Ever criticize a politician in writing? How about a backroom political operator? A CEO? Or even a company's shoddy products? Canada stands alone in the Western democratic world in that it still allows public persons and corporations to use libel law to silence their fair critics. The result is often libel chill, as the CBC piece that ran last night on The National, featuring among others myself and Kate Holloway, details.

Worse, our courts are still unclear how to apply libel law to the Internet.

As I've written about before, (see here) I'm being sued by Green Party of Canada creditor and former campaign manager Wayne Crookes over links and articles other people wrote which I had the misfortune of reposting in a Yahoo Group forum. During the Green Party of Canada's 2006 internal election I kept a wiki which had a link to a candidate's web page, which had on it somewhere a link to a wiki which had on it somewhere some content Crookes objects too (I still don't know what!). For this, he is also suing me, though, to date, he's not sued the candidate.

If Wayne Crookes (the plaintiff) gets his way, entire sites could be forced offline simply for linking to another site which somewhere on it has content someone claims is libelous.

Crookes is also using Wikipedia and (ironically) the OpenPolitics.ca wiki. For a great piece about the OpenPolitics case, see fellow ProgBlogger Chris Tindal's excellent The Silliness of Suing a Wiki which is a piece explaining why suing a wiki is ridiculous.

Crookes responded by suing that author as well. Read it and see if you can figure out what is libelous.

Done? According to Crookes, nothing written in that piece is libelous -- except it has some links he doesn't want published.

And now, for linking to it, he can sue me (again!) as well. And if you link to this post, you can now get sued.

Or so he argues.

What these lawsuits place at risk is nothing less than net democracy in Canada. By insisting that political writings no more unusual than what we all read daily on blogs, forums and wikis are to be considered libelous, and by succeeding in getting defendants to remove material (and in one case removing an entire blog over one post and some comments) without even a court order or finding, and for claiming that hyperlinks — even over multiple jumps — are to be considered as disseminating alleged libel, Crookes' lawsuits are attacking the very roots of our online community. There are issues here which our courts have yet to decide on, and unless we can fund and fight these lawsuits, the courts may rule his way, establishing a precedent which may not only chill the Canadian Internet, but freeze it.

What we want is for political writing to be specially protected from such lawsuits, as it is in countries like New Zealand, Australia and the UK. We want right-of-reply recognized as a remedy to defamation. We want the reverse-onus provision (guilty until proven innocent!) with regards to libel eliminated. And we want to see penalties applied to those who try to use libel law to silence dissent, such as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) provision in use in California, which allows judges to dismiss qualifying cases early in the litigation process.

We want to be able to publicly question those in power without chill without fear.

Political writings should not be held merely on par with other expressions. Political writings are what have granted us our very freedoms, and will continue to preserve them as long as they flourish. Unprecedented in history, citizens can now publish their political opinions and inquiries online. We can now be freer than ever before; however, Canada's libel laws can and likely will make these most important expressions a liability to the corporations hosting the material, and our political opinions subject to coercion from the powerful. We need to change these laws, or lie down and be the peasants they say we are.

So Donate!

To defend ourselves, we badly need money. Over at LibelChill.ca you can donate to our defense fund through Paypal. Please give generously. Libel lawsuits are very expensive and as we are fighting several at once, we are looking at an initial price tag of up to $100,000. If you value your online expression, you need to donate!

If you run a blog, there are promotional banners you can place on your blog here. (Feel free to design something better -- just let me know.) The CBC video is available on YouTube here.

We need your help. And you need us to help establish and preserve your online rights.

I leave you with the words of an American defendant, David Weekly, CEO of PBwiki.com:

I don't think there's a realistic option for companies to actively monitor the content that they host. My company of six people publishes over two million unique pages of user-provided information. A rather simpler solution for ISPs, if this trial goes the wrong way, would be to simply firewall Canada to prevent Canadians from accessing websites with consumer media. That's the only option our company could afford to undertake. (We're also being sued by Crookes.) It'd be like the Great Firewall of China, but in reverse.

If you don't know my private email, and want to contact me, either leave a message below (and if you don't want the message posted, tell me), or reach me at libelchillinfo (AT) gmail.com.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 8/17/2007 10:45:00 AM

[Section 15] Why I'm leaving the Greens for the Liberals, Part 1

I am leaving the Green Party and joining up with the Liberals.

There are many reasons for me to do this, but at the top of the list is to support former senior Green Party of Canada member Kate Holloway's efforts to become the Liberal MPP for Trinity-Spadina.

This does not mean that I am throwing away my green views. I am, instead, going to where they are most likely to quickly be put to good use.

Just after Dion's green scarves painted the Liberal leadership convention, Kate resigned from the Green Party of Canada's governing council, and left the Party. She called me up and asked me to follow her.

As Kate can be, she was very persuasive.

Dion had just won the leadership of the Liberals and there was hope that the Grits just might actually go green. Liberals have a history of pragmatically adopting policy to stay alive, and the public pressure to green our economy was (and still is) clearly growing. Adopting green policy would also further distinguish the Liberals from the green-regressive Conservatives. And although the GPC is doing better, it is still a generation away from forming a government, if ever. With so many issues looming large (energy shortages, ongoing environmental degradation from pollutants, the assault on biological diversity, the secret North American Union discussions, global warming causing climate change…) and the time to deal with these issues growing shorter every day, party loyalty arguably should take a backseat to green movement priorities.

I took a day to think about it.

The next day I told Kate I was concerned that she would just be gobbled up. I said that even if she was right, the green movement still needed a political organ through which to criticize the other parties, and to educate and advocate. If I could justify leaving, then so could the whole GPC, and then where would this much-needed movement be?

Kate had been fighting for a long time within the party to reform it. The GPC is a grassroots-based party, with constitutional requirements for participatory democracy and social justice, but it had very much strayed from these important principles, becoming an opaque, membership-disrespecting, highly centralized and autocratic body. Kate was at the center of the fight to bring the party back on course, and was viciously smeared by senior party members for it. With the election of Elizabeth May, which we had fought so hard for, and the injection of some new blood onto council, there was renewed hope that the party would remember its roots, and brings its members back into the fold.

I wasn't ready to leave yet. I stayed on, working in the Green Party of Ontario (GPO) as a voting member of its governing body, pushing for party growth and election preparedness. In the GPC, I sat and watched, looking for improvement.

Kate went on to build relationships within the federal and provincial Liberal parties. With her appointment by the Premier to run in Trinity-Spadina, I would say that she's been successful.

In the next few days, look for part 2: I fought for the Green Party, but all I got was this stupid lawsuit.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 8/16/2007 01:01:00 PM

[Section 15] Kate Holloway to run for the Liberals in Trinity-Spadina

Kate and I are good friends. I have lots to write about, but for now, just read the press release.

August 10, 2007

For immediate release


Environmentalist, activist Kate Holloway Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina

Former high-profile Green Party of Canada member appointed by Premier



TRINITY-SPADINA – Ontario Liberals today announced that high-profile environmental activist and former Green Party of Canada executive member Kate Holloway will be the party's candidate in the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina.

Holloway has been appointed as candidate by Premier Dalton McGuinty.

"Kate Holloway has two very strong passions – the community and conservation. She believes in action, she has compiled an impressive list of achievements and already serves as a role model. I'm proud to have her as part of our Liberal team," said Premier McGuinty.

The addition of Holloway to the McGuinty Liberal team has received immediate applause.

"Today's announcement represents a huge environment coup for Premier Dalton McGuinty. To be able to recruit such a high calibre environmental candidate shows he means business in further developing his strong green team going into this fall's election. Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals, now including Kate Holloway, are where the action is for environmental protection in Ontario," said Deb Shulte, Co-Chair, Friends of Boyd Park.

"Kate has a rare combination of qualities. She is passionate about the environment, wise in the ways of business, and politically astute," said Chris Lowry, Executive Director of Green Enterprise Toronto.

"Kate understands the issues of sustainability and the urgent need for a greener agenda; she will be an energetic and effective Member," said Michael De Pencier, publisher of Toronto Life.

"Kate Holloway is very well known in the community as a strong and effective proponent for progress on environmental issues," said David Donnelly a prominent environmental lawyer and activist. "From action on renewable energy to climate change, she's been a leader. She's a green diva."

Holloway has founded, managed and directed several Toronto environmental startups and non-profit associations. She sits on the Steering Committee of Green Enterprise Toronto, a network helping independent businesses and consumers become greener and buy locally and is a founding member of the Women's Environmental Alliance.

She was also a high-profile member of Green Party of Canada, where she served on the national executive, co-founded the Green Party Women's Caucus and ran as a federal candidate.

"As a conservationist and advocate for strong, sustainable communities I've been impressed with progress made by the McGuinty Liberals, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, investing in public transit, becoming a leader in clean energy such as wind power and offering incentives to help Ontarians go green – not to mention support for our schools, hospitals and neighbourhoods. I want to make sure that
progress continues," said Holloway.

"We all know where the province was four years ago – the environmentwas under attack, our cities were facing neglect, public health and education were on a downward slope. We can't afford to go back to that. We need to keep moving forward," she said.


-30-


For more information, contact:

Ben Chin
(416) 358-6291

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 8/10/2007 05:23:00 AM

[Section 15] How to lose a big oil advertiser in one easy step

Take a look at this entire page from the Chicago Tribune, starting with the banner.

BP actually has been working hard at its image, and some consider it the greenest of the big oil companies; however the actual article suggests there's a lot of greenwashing going on.

Big surprise.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/30/2007 09:26:00 PM

[Section 15] Moore gets subpoenaed

UPI reports that Michael Moore has received a subpoena over the trip to Cuba in his movie Sicko.

It is illegal for Americans to travel to Cuba.

Perhaps Moore has found his next movie?

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/27/2007 09:52:00 AM

[Section 15] Once again, we're bumped from The National

Sorry. We got another call saying that the piece on libel chill has been bumped.

This, of course, happens all the time, and no one is to blame.

I'll let you all know when it supposed to show.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/25/2007 07:57:00 PM

[Section 15] ALERT: National piece on libel chill is on tonight!

I've just learned that CBC's The National is running the libel chill piece featuring myself and Kate Holloway TONIGHT between 10 and 11 p.m. EST.

We are supposed to be in the third segment of the show.

I hope it is definite this time.

For more information, see this post, and then, please, go to LibelChill.ca and donate!

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/25/2007 05:22:00 PM

[Section 15] The Libel Chill piece on The National is now not on tonight

Television being what it is, The National piece on libel chill in Canada has been delayed. It was to be on tonight, but has been moved to another air date, currently unknown.

In the meantime, please head on over to LibelChill.ca and donate for the cause!

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/24/2007 02:36:00 PM

[Section 15] CBC The National - Threat to the 'Net and Political Free Speech ...

This Tuesday night, please watch the CBC news story on the threats to blogs, wikis, and your right to know.

This news story on The National covers political Internet freedoms of speech that you surely hold dear, but are currently in peril.

A handful of current Canadian lawsuits currently pose an enormous threat to the Internet and politics in Canada, namely:

• the enormous social and global potential of collaborative computing, social networking, and open source dialogue;
• open and frank political speech in Canada, currently being "chilled" as truth disappears;
• silencing, real and potential, of Internet whistleblowers, satirists, political humourists, anonymous sources and political dissidents;
• the potential liability to anyone writing or hosting a blog or a wiki, for fear of legal and financial liability

Political correspondent Leslie Mackinnon interviews Professor of Internet Law Micheal Geist, seasoned blogger Mark Francis, and former Green Party-turned Liberal Party activist Kate Holloway about lawsuits currently opened against them from Wayne Crookes of BC.

Crookes is also currently suing Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, Myspace, and P2PNet and many more.

Please watch this show to understand the issues better. Please invite all you know on Facebook to this event. Please go to cbc.ca/national and/or to libelchill.ca afterwards to comment and to share your thoughts and read the thoughts of others.

Please take this issue seriously, and finally,

After you see the story, go to libelchill.ca and donate to the Defense Fund (a legal trust fund for the defendants) to make sure that the champions of online truth can keep fighting for your right to know, share and create online.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/22/2007 05:06:00 PM

[Section 15] It is political expression or vandalism?

I suspect the answer is 'both', but I can't help but to encourage this line of thinking. See
http://illegalsigns.ca/?p=2420 for what I mean.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/15/2007 12:50:00 PM

[Section 15] My interview for The National

As you may know, I am being sued by Wayne Crookes for libel. He is also suing Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Pbwiki.com, Openpolitics, P2Pnet, various Green Party of Canada activists, Michael Geist and several anonymous persons. I wrote on the matter here.

Several of us have banded together and are actively fundraising all over North America. A necessary part of that has included media relation endeavors.

Well, we got a hit.

Leslie Mackinnon is a veteran reporter for The National, covering the federal political scene. She got in touch with us as she's doing a story on libel chill and the Internet. We agreed to be interviewed so we could discuss the delicate position we find ourselves in.

Where we sit is delicate because we all want to discuss the important issues these lawsuits raise; however to discuss them is to raise the possibility of other libel claims being filed.

I know that most people think that libel is something drastic and obvious. In Canada, however, libel is so backwards that it can be found in the most innocent-appearing material because the standard for arguing libel is so low. Basically, if you make any negative comment about anyone, the accusation can be made that you have libeled. Now, that doesn't mean you're guilty -- libel claims certainly can be defended against -- but the more claims there are, the more money you'll need, and you never can be too sure of the outcome of a trial. And repeating libels can take on the odor of maliciousness, which, in Canada, completely destroys any possible defense save parliamentary privilege, which I, of course, do not have.

Not long ago, libel chill was not something a common person experienced because common people were not publishing. Now we are and so are exposed to the pitfalls of hundreds of years of antiquated law designed to protect aristocratic authority. Mackinnon wanted to know how this lawsuit is affecting our lives.

(This was not something I was expecting to find inside a political Party which has in its constitution the principles of participatory democracy and social justice, but I digress...)

I found the interview difficult. Despite having media relations training, and despite having lots to say, I feel that I rambled. I think I had far too much to say. I missed many opportunities to place some succinct words before the camera. After the interview was over we talked for 20 minutes more, and even debated on a few points.

If the case makes it to trial (and I intend it to take it that far), I hope she'll give it coverage. Journalists are tracking the story, that much is sure.

I'm not sure when the piece will air, or if I'll even be in it. When I now, I'll drop a note here.

===

Where have I been? Well, aside from being busy with work and kids, I've been working hard on this lawsuit. A trust fund has been established and in a few weeks we expect a site up and running to take donations from the public and to advocate for libel law reform. I hope my fellow bloggers will be generous. I'm fighting for your freedoms as well, after all.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/10/2007 08:50:00 PM

[Section 15] Micheal Geist is being sued by Wayne Crookes

It's official: A defamation lawsuit has been filed in BC against Law Professor Micheal Geist by Wayne Crookes, the same person who is suing me. Geist is being sued for, among other things, having a named link to P2pnet, which has on it somewhere a page which has a named link to Open Politics, which has content on it somewhere which Crookes objects to.

Yes, you read that right.

Crookes claims that this makes Geist a republisher of libel!

Oh, by the way, in another area of the lawsuit, Crookes makes it clear that anyone who is part of Green Bloggers can be sued for a link which is in the aggregator's blogroll.

I'm too busy to say more right now... but I would hope that if this community truly values its existence, it would band together to do something about this.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/28/2007 08:04:00 PM

[Section 15] I feel fine.. no wait... thunk!

Well, it wasn't quite that dramatic, but I did have something of a medical shock this weekend.

I started out as your standard moderate cramps, and, well, you all know where that usually leads. After picking my son up from school, I ended up drinking some beer at a friend's and eating pizza for supper while our sons played. I went home when it was dark, picked up some groceries, and went to bed feeling lousy. BY gut hurt, my back and my head hurt. And I still have this stupid head cold.

That night, the cramps were quite bad, but I largely slept through it all. As I suffered through peritonitis when I was a kid, cramps are something I can deal with.

Saturday I felt better. The cramps seemed to be over. I took it easy, did some easy work, and slept again. Eating wasn't pleasant, and I had no hunger whatsoever, so I avoided it. That evening my back started to hurt, a lot. I was audible. The cramps came back as well, and I developed radiating pain from my navel area through to my centre mid-back and back again. By midnight I was considering going to the hospital. Natalie -- my wife -- called Telehealth Ontario and after going through the symptoms, they recommended that I go to the ER for a checkup within the next few hours. We don't have a car, and as we have three young children, I made the decision to take an ambulance. I told Natalie to stay home with the kids as there was nothing for her to do at the hospital, and, heck, she'd be dead the next day if she stayed up all night. She has the little one to breast feed, the other kids to comfort, and the hospital is only a phone call away.

Just before the ambulance showed up, I started feeling better. "That figures," I thought. They took me in anyway, even though I could walk out to the vehicle. I sat up on the way in, though I got carsick very quickly. I barely made it out of the ambulance without throwing up. A paramedic told me to take in some fresh air as I got out, but, sadly, there were smokers right there.

Anyway, I got in and was waiting in the ambulatory area inside ER, when I noticed that I was feeling very fine. I was restless, so I walked around a bit. I pondered going home. Then I got itchy around my right underarm and forearm. I scratched. then I got itchy in the same place but on the other side. Then my ribs, and my belly, and my scalp and my groin and my thighs. What the hell?, I thought. So I got up, went in to the washroom, and looked at myself in the mirror. I was covered in a rash. I scratched.

I sat back in my wheelchair. I scratched. I figured they could find some sort of ointment to help. But I was fine. Really.

Then I couldn't get quite enough air and my peripheral vision vanished. I realized two things: I had spent several minutes being euphoric, and that I was passing out. I had enough brains to get help, and after passing out in a chair under watchful eyes, I was woken up and helped onto a gurney. Lying down made me feel much better. After being on an IV for an hour, I felt much improved. They sent off a blood test. I had an x-ray done of my back, though I nearly fainted while holding my breath.

About an hour later, they applied another a fluid, this time under a pump, forcing potassium into me. The blood test showed that I was critically short of it. This is odd as I consume potassium-rich foods daily, and not suffering from diarrhea or vomiting, which is about the only potential source of potassium loss in my case. Of course, a little later, I did have considerable fluid loss, from the usual source when you have had cramps.

Anyway, I picked up a lot, slept, and by noon they had me under a CT scanner, taking a look at my abdominal region. The CT technician (an understatement given how much schooling they require) was affable and had me ready to go in no time. I've never had one before and it was, well, boring, though the engineering required to get that machine spinning around me was interesting. I didn't enjoy the dye being pumped into me. I hurt, and made holding my breath hard, but, being transitory, I didn't mind.

I spent the afternoon sleeping and eating -- yes, I had two full meals there -- talked with Natalie (finally) in the mid-afternoon. She came by and took me home for six p.m.

So, the diagnosis? Infectious enteritis is the leading suspect, as the CT scan showed definite inflammation over a long segment of my terminal ileum, which is the end of the small intestine. However, it is also possibly an autoimmune disorder, though likely not. I have one more test to wait on, though they have no way to rule out a viral infection.

I'm feeling much better, but remain astounded as to how fast I went from being fine to crashing due to an electrolyte imbalance.

And while in the hospital, I lost my glasses. I put them down while in the washroom, and someone walked off with them. Despite two shifts looking for them, no luck. Who the heck steals prescription glasses anyway?

Anyway, thanks to the staff of St. Joseph's Health Care Centre for looking after me, and for my wife and family doing the same. And for those kind comments over at The Wingnuterer, of all places.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/15/2007 01:00:00 PM

[Section 15] On a lighter note... blow me

If anyone has been following the other controversy this week, that is, the broohaha over Ontario Premier McGuinty's Flick Off conservation program, The Star's Linwood Barclay has some suggestions for additional add campaigns.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/04/2007 06:52:00 AM

[Section 15] Neville again

Oh, I so don't want to do this, and have no tiem to blog, but, for thoroughness sake, here's more evidence of hypocrisy when it comes to using the example of Chamberlain's folly...

Philippe Gohier, Macleans.ca | May 2, 2007 | 7:07 pm EST

As Macleans.ca first pointed out this morning, Green Party leader Elizabeth May is hardly the first Canadian politician to use Neville Chamberlain as a rhetorical device.

For instance, in a manner strikingly similar to May's, NDP leader Jack Layton suggested in 2005 that then-prime minister Paul Martin's failure to meet Kyoto targets made "Neville Chamberlain look like a stalwart in standing up to a crisis." Two years later, Layton is feeling a sudden surge of decorum.

"Well, we certainly would have never made any such comparison," he said Tuesday, when asked by reporters about May's comment.

Pressed by Macleans.ca to explain this seeming contradiction, Layton's press secretary said the NDP stood by Layton's previous statement and said the party would continue to condemn May's "deplorable remarks." According to Karl Bélanger, the comparison "wasn't the same at all" because when Layton brought up Chamberlain, it wasn't a specific reference to appeasement but to Chamberlain's entire oeuvre while in office.

"Neville Chamberlain was not generally recognized as a strong leader," Bélanger explained. "He was prime minister for a few years."

Calls to the offices of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain comments made by Liberal MP Robert Thibault and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay respectively went unanswered.

With party leaders of all stripes calling on May to retract her statement that the abandonment of Kyoto targets is "a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis," the Green leader relented somewhat on Wednesday and offered a tepid apology.

"I am dismayed that members of the Harper government have chosen to distort my comments to create a firestorm of controversy designed to distract attention from their failure to live up to Canada's Kyoto commitments," May said. "I can assure the Canadian Jewish Congress and all Canadians that I did not compare Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to any current issue. The evil of the Nazi regime is without parallel and stands alone for its deliberate, systematic and inhuman genocide."

But that didn't stop Conservative MPs from hammering away in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

Gerald Keddy, for one, denounced May's "irresponsible comparison of Canadian public policy to Chamberlain's appeasement" and called on Dion to withdraw his party's support for May. However, in 2001, Keddy himself raised the spectre of Nazi appeasement to attack then-NDP leader Alexa McDonough's reluctance to support the mission in Afghanistan.

"Mr. Speaker, to go back to another era, perhaps Neville Chamberlain should move over and the honourable member for Halifax should sit down because they are both standing in the same place," Keddy said. "This is not the time nor place in Canadian history to try to stand on both sides of a line. We very clearly have drawn a line here and now is the time to take a stand."

That same year, Stockwell Day used a similar argument against then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, suggesting the Liberal government's failure to boost military spending and its cautious approach with Iraq was putting Canadians in danger.

"I hear the echo of Neville Chamberlain in everything he says," Day said of Chrétien. "He's saying 'peace in our time' while terrorists are planning nuclear and chemical attacks on innocent populations. I don't know what it's going to take for him to wake up. He's exposing Canada as being vulnerable."

Of course, on Wednesday, Day condemned May's "horrific" statements.

In the spirit of once-and-for-all banishing this lazy bit of rhetoric, Macleans.ca presents a selection of other Chamberlain references made by MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons.

"That's the type of statement Chamberlain made before World War II." -Conservative MP Leon Benoit on the Liberal government's reluctance to back U.S. invasion of Iraq, August 2002

"It is not time for Neville Chamberlain. It's time for Winston Churchill." -Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, on the need to boost military spending, February 2002

"I remember a person in about 1939 coming back from a meeting with Adolph Hitler in Munich. He waved a piece of paper around saying 'peace in our times.' Thousands and thousands of people applauded him and said that it was a great accomplishment and that he was a man of peace. However there was another man, Sir Winston Churchill, who said that appeasement never works with evil and terrorism. These people cannot be negotiated with. They have no respect for the rule of law." -Conservative MP Brian Fitzpatrick on terrorism, October 2001

"Mr. Speaker, the minister still insists on his pathetic strategy of waiting eight months for the task force to report. He looks like Neville Chamberlain trumpeting the virtues of waiting while his foes make busy their preparations. The minister needs to acknowledge that the world does not stand still, not even for him." -NDP MP Alexa McDonough on the Chrétien government's refusal to establish a committee to look into bank mergers, February 1998

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/03/2007 06:26:00 PM

[Section 15] Of pots and kettles using Chamberlain analogies

So Elizabeth May is in the middle of a small controversy over her remarks comparing the lack of proper action regarding global warming in Canada to Neville Chamberlain's failure to appreciate the dangers of Nazi Germany. With some politicians calling for her to retract her remarks, I thought it fitting to visit similar recent remarks from other politicians.

From Hansard, Jack Layton:

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We have been hearing those kinds of comments from the Prime Minister for 16 years since he began promising to clean up the air for Canadians and instead we have worse pollution than ever. He makes Neville Chamberlain look like a stalwart in standing up to a crisis.

Smog is sending people to emergency wards at unprecedented levels. The prairies are drying up. We have forest fires like we have never had before. All we get are promises of plans to be brought forward some day. Will he bring forward a plan, yes or no?

From Hansard, Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) (whom I just saw on CBC distancing himself a bit from May):

I listened to the Minister of Finance when he was reading his budget speech. He said that the long days of bickering between the federal and provincial governments were over. I have not heard a quote like that since I read about Neville Chamberlain talking about peace in our times right before the second world war.

And, finally, also from Hansard, Peter Mackay, MP for Central Nova, and soon to be running against Elizabeth May herself, is recently on record with this:

Mr. Speaker, what is completely sad is that the member would somehow diminish the real important work that is being done. Millions of Afghan children are now in school and work is being done to build villages with clean water, with hospitals and with schools. I do not know how the member can debase that effort and equate it with some of the rigorous activity that is going on inside that country, the activities that he described.

I do not expect members of the NDP to understand this. I fully expect that the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century in the NDP do not want to be part of an effort that is aimed at elevating the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that they would take this off track and try to debase the real activity, the important quality of life changes that are taking place because of our forces being in Afghanistan. That is what is so misleading about the position of the NDP.

Climate change caused by Global Warming will likely be a catastrophe causing immense death and suffering unless we act with far more aggression now. Comparing our inaction and dithering to Neville Chamberlain's lack of vision is appropriate given the risks we are taking. Certainly, Elizabeth's use of the analogy is not out of the ordinary.

====
Update:

I forgot to cite my ultimate reference: Selective Memory by Aaron Wherry, though I don't think his Mackay citation link is correct.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/02/2007 02:50:00 PM

[Section 15] Of pots and kettles using Chamberlain analogies

So Elizabeth May is in the middle of a small controversy over her remarks comparing the lack of proper action regarding global warming in Canada to Neville Chamberlain's failure to appreciate the dangers of Nazi Germany. With some politicians calling for her to retract her remarks, I thought it fitting to visit similar recent remarks from other politicians.

From Hansard, Jack Layton:

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We have been hearing those kinds of comments from the Prime Minister for 16 years since he began promising to clean up the air for Canadians and instead we have worse pollution than ever. He makes Neville Chamberlain look like a stalwart in standing up to a crisis.

Smog is sending people to emergency wards at unprecedented levels. The prairies are drying up. We have forest fires like we have never had before. All we get are promises of plans to be brought forward some day. Will he bring forward a plan, yes or no?

From Hansard, Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) (whom I just saw on CBC distancing himself a bit from May):

I listened to the Minister of Finance when he was reading his budget speech. He said that the long days of bickering between the federal and provincial governments were over. I have not heard a quote like that since I read about Neville Chamberlain talking about peace in our times right before the second world war.

And, finally, also from Hansard, Peter Mackay, MP for Central Nova, and soon to be running against Elizabeth May herself, is recently on record with this:

Mr. Speaker, what is completely sad is that the member would somehow diminish the real important work that is being done. Millions of Afghan children are now in school and work is being done to build villages with clean water, with hospitals and with schools. I do not know how the member can debase that effort and equate it with some of the rigorous activity that is going on inside that country, the activities that he described.

I do not expect members of the NDP to understand this. I fully expect that the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century in the NDP do not want to be part of an effort that is aimed at elevating the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that they would take this off track and try to debase the real activity, the important quality of life changes that are taking place because of our forces being in Afghanistan. That is what is so misleading about the position of the NDP.

Climate change caused by Global Warming will likely be a catastrophe causing immense death and suffering unless we act with far more aggression now. Comparing our inaction and dithering to Neville Chamberlain's lack of vision is appropriate given the risks we are taking. Certainly, Elizabeth's use of the analogy is not out of the ordinary.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/02/2007 02:50:00 PM

[Section 15] Election called in PEI

Canada's tiniest province is having an election, and the provincial Green Party there is running candidates. Their website is up at http://greenparty.pe.ca/.

I had the chance to talk in person last October with Sharon Labchuk, the outgoing leader of the GPPEI, and she's rightfully critical of the farm production monoculture on the island. The sheer volume of pesticides and fungicides is incredible. It's as if everyone on the island is a guinea pig in some mad evolutionary experiment. Being a largely closed, isolated ecosystem, I wonder what kind of damage is going on? There's some evidence that PEI is becoming a hotbed of cancer:

Despite repeated assertions from government officials that the statistics don't provide any proof, many Prince Edward Island residents believe that heavy pesticide use on the island's potato farms is causing high rates of cancer and other diseases. With about 7,000 fields spanning 110,000 acres, the small island produces more than a billion kilograms of potatoes every year, making PEI one of the most intensely-farmed areas in Canada.

The tiny island of PEI, which is small enough to fit into Saskatchewan 115 times, supplies nearly 30 percent of Canada's potato market. But there is a heavy price to pay for the tremendous agricultural production. According to PEI Green Party leader Sharon Labchuk, potatoes grown on that magnitude require "enormous amounts" of fungicidal chemicals to ward off blight, a disease that can devastate potato crops. Labchuk says the crops are sprayed about 20 times per year—every four days in blight season—and the three main fungicidals used on the potatoes have been classed as carcinogens by the U.S. government.

Since the 1980s, potato production in PEI has doubled, but pesticide use has soared by 700 percent in the same period.

"Both Liberals and Conservatives have sunk a ton of taxpayers' money into subsidizing the industry, and what we have now is a virtual potato monoculture," says Labchuk. "You grow a monoculture in this industrial system and you're tied to the chemicals."

Labchuk points out that because PEI is densely populated—the most densely-populated province in Canada, in far—the potato fields are interspersed among the homes, hospitals, daycares and schools, which means that people are constantly within range of the sprays.

But experts disagree on whether this chemical exposure has resulted in unusually high cancer rates on the island.

Linda Van Til, Epidemiologist for the PEI Department of Health, says that while PEI cancer rates have spiked here and there, the overall trend tends to be on a par with the rest of Canada. Van Til says one of the few cancers that has been demonstrated to fluctuate with pesticide use is non-Hodgekins lymphoma, but tracking by the Health Department has shown no increase in the prevalence of that cancer.

"It certainly seems that the cancers we do see, the higher trends are related to much more mundane things such as smoking and diet, which is regrettably low in fruits and vegetables," says Van Til.

But Dr. Ron Matsusaki, emergency room physician at Western Hospital in Alberton, says that in all the years he's worked as a doctor both in Canada and the U.S., he hasn't seen cancer rates that come even remotely close to what he's seeing in the West Prince area of PEI. He says he has no doubt that these cancers are caused by "an insane amount" of chemical pesticides. Every second household in Mimnegash, a fishing village in West Prince surrounded by potato fields, has been afflicted with cancer, according to Matsusaki.

Since the 1980s, potato production in PEI has doubled, but pesticide use has soared by 700 percent in the same period.

"Both Liberals and Conservatives have sunk a ton of taxpayers' money into subsidizing the industry, and what we have now is a virtual potato monoculture," says Labchuk. "You grow a monoculture in this industrial system and you're tied to the chemicals."

Labchuk points out that because PEI is densely populated—the most densely-populated province in Canada, in far—the potato fields are interspersed among the homes, hospitals, daycares and schools, which means that people are constantly within range of the sprays.

But experts disagree on whether this chemical exposure has resulted in unusually high cancer rates on the island.

Linda Van Til, Epidemiologist for the PEI Department of Health, says that while PEI cancer rates have spiked here and there, the overall trend tends to be on a par with the rest of Canada. Van Til says one of the few cancers that has been demonstrated to fluctuate with pesticide use is non-Hodgekins lymphoma, but tracking by the Health Department has shown no increase in the prevalence of that cancer.

"It certainly seems that the cancers we do see, the higher trends are related to much more mundane things such as smoking and diet, which is regrettably low in fruits and vegetables," says Van Til.

But Dr. Ron Matsusaki, emergency room physician at Western Hospital in Alberton, says that in all the years he's worked as a doctor both in Canada and the U.S., he hasn't seen cancer rates that come even remotely close to what he's seeing in the West Prince area of PEI. He says he has no doubt that these cancers are caused by "an insane amount" of chemical pesticides. Every second household in Mimnegash, a fishing village in West Prince surrounded by potato fields, has been afflicted with cancer, according to Matsusaki.

These things are always controversial... but is it not warranted to be cautious? Is the potato production monoculture worth it?

Binn is expected to coast to a majority. I wonder if the greens can make the road a bit more bumpy for him?

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/01/2007 05:32:00 PM

[Section 15] Why political speech needs protection

I think I often write better comments on other people's blogs, than posts on my own.

As you may know, I am being sued by Wayne Crookes for defamation. (See I am being sued by Wayne Crookes for some background.)

Here's an edited version of what I posted on Michael Geist's blog in further response (see what I posted earlier today) to his column:

A person's right to reputation does not override another's right to expression, nor does a person's right to expression override another's right to reputation. People also have a right to privacy, which in Canada also comes into conflict with freedom of expression.

All of these rights have to be balanced with each other, along with the many needs of a free and democratic society.

If Internet intermediaries were to be found responsible in this case, then the clear effect would be the curtailment of freedom of expression, based upon the _presumption_ that libel would otherwise be the result. I can't imagine a workable system, which would be sufficient to guard intermediaries while still allowing our expressions. Not only is it onerous for a provider of Internet services to fact-check everything written, libel can be a terribly complicated affair in Canada, not always evident to a reader, but nevertheless clearly evident to the subject, assuming they are being honest about it (which is a problem in of itself.)

The classic example is someone writing that a certain person wears a red scarf. Is that libelous? Well, apparently not even if not true, but if a red scarf worn in the person's neighborhood is proof positive that the subject is a gang member, when they actually don't wear such a scarf, libel has been done... even if the author had no idea.

How would an intermediary know that such writing was libelous?

In a more general sense, it is far too much to ask such intermediaries to be the arbitrators of what is acceptable. Do we want a profit-driven series of corporations to decide what we post and what we don't? Would they? No, they wouldn't. If such a liability existed, even if they still allowed us to express ourselves without prior vetting, at the first sign of a complaint, they would take down whatever was written in order to avoid or to minimize their liability. I think it's clear how easily that can be abused. And please, don't doubt that it is.

America, the UK and Europe and many Commonwealth nations have long since moved on in their libel law. We need to as well. Just use common sense here: Is it not more effective to battle defamation online by writing a reply? Compare that to spending several years in court trying to get it corrected. It's absurd.

Are we to also hold ordinary people like myself to the same standards held by traditional media? Can't we have conversations online, exploring issues, and, yes, making mistakes, without being unduly worried about someone flush with cash coming by and pounding to death with archaic law our discussions?

Though I can understand my private neighbours being disturbed if I started writing about them online, I can't say the same about Stephen Harper, or Elizabeth May, or any of the people who stand behind them, sometimes largely hidden from view, yet affecting governance and political dialogue in our society. Political speech is very important to the health of a society, and many democratic jurisdictions in our world have come to realize this and have adjusted their libel law to suit. [Want a long, complex read? See the UK's solution: Reynolds v. Times Newspapers and Others]

Not in Canada. Here, the law used by the aristocrats of yesteryear still prevails.

I agree that people should not be allowed to perpetuate lies clearly presented as fact, which would otherwise harm a person. However, we are not fools. We know the difference between fact and opinion. As long as the opinion is derived from fact, regardless as to why the person is writing it, as long as they subject is public, then so be it. Anything else leads us down the road to where free speech exists only in the hands of oligarchies and rich or connected individuals.

As for anonymous commenters, c'mon! They're anonymous! Since when do unverified statements from anonymous cowards have any weight on the Internet?

That being said, unless Canadian libel law shapes up, free speech on the net will be moving offshore, spoken and hosted anonymously.

How is that going to be good for anyone?

David Weekly, CEO of PBWiki and another Crookes defendant, came by Geist's blog and pointed out that he could never afford to vet posts from Canadian to the millions of wiki pages his site holds. He'd just ban us with a Chinese wall. Too much liability otherwise.

Things are going to have to change.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/30/2007 09:04:00 PM

[Section 15] Michael Geist on the dangerous significance of Crookes' lawsuits

Law professor Michael Geist has penned a column concerning some of the lawsuits recently launched by Wayne Crookes. I am a defendant in one of them -- see I am being sued by Wayne Crookes for more details. Geist does not concern himself with any merits of the defamation claims; rather, he concentrates on the really large issues raised, which, if the suits are successful, will affect us all:

The lawsuits could prove to be critically important to the Internet in Canada, ... because they cast the net of liability far wider than just the initial posters. Indeed, the lawsuits seek to hold accountable sites and services that host the articles, feature comments about the articles, include hyperlinks to the articles, fail to actively monitor their content to ensure that allegedly defamatory articles are not reposted after being removed, and even those that implement the domain name registrations of sites that host the articles.

The common link with all of these targets is that none are directly responsible for alleged defamation. Rather, the Crookes lawsuits maintain that Internet intermediaries should be held equally responsible for such content.

In other words, Yahoo is to be held responsible for posts in the closed GPC-Members Yahoo group and links to other sites Crookes has problem with; Google is to be held responsible for the contents of an anonymous blog on Blogspot, and for the contents of its search engine; Wikipedia held responsible for not banning an entry; PBWiki held at fault for an GPC election wiki... to name a few.

Libel laws in Canada are archaic and can be very confusing. Despite what many believe, you can libel someone in Canada even when speaking about the truth, and there is no exception of any kind for political speech or commenting on public figures, which is law at odds with most of the democracies in this world, who have long since reformed their libel laws.

If these laws, which vary province to province, are not updated, 'open' online forums and blogs will eventually wither and die. Wikis, such as the one operated by Mike Pilling, are very much endangered as well, probably more so.

These lawsuits are reaching across the border into the United States. Anyone who can argue to have an interest in British Columbia can launch a libel lawsuit there against content 'published' on the Internet in another jurisdiction. Leaving these particular lawsuits behind, can you imagine the bizarre state of affairs we would have if America politicians made it a point of establishing numbered companies in BC, so they could use backwards BC laws to shut down
their opponents' published statements? How about foreign corps using BC libel law to shut down discussions about the use of child labour etc...?

Should the entire 'Global Village' have to follow the restrictive laws of just one of its tiny huts?

Note that Geist mentions himself receiving a letter from Crookes requesting two posts to be removed from his blog.

Geist concludes with this:

While it will fall to a judge to determine whether the articles and postings are indeed defamatory, the inclusion of such a broad range of Internet intermediaries could have a significant chilling effect on free speech in Canada. If successful, the suits would effectively require websites - including anyone who permits comments on a blog or includes links to other sites - to proactively monitor and remove content that may raise liability concerns. They will also call into question the ability of domain name registrants to guard their privacy by refusing to publicly-disclose their identities.

In response, it is likely that many sites will simply drop the ability to post comments since the challenge of monitoring and verifying every comment will be too onerous. Alternatively, many sites may abandon Canada altogether by establishing their online presence in the United States. Courts in the U.S. have repeatedly denied attempts to hold intermediaries liable for content posted by third parties on the grounds that a 1996 statute provided them with immunity for such postings.

Canada would do well to introduce a similar provision, since the consequences for defamatory speech should rest with those directly responsible, not mere by-standers with deep pockets.

I'll go a step further and suggest that services such as those offered by Google would become constrained in Canada by a Chinese wall. Looking at what is being argued, it's clear that content written and hosted outside of Canada would be subject to Canadian libel law as long as the subject claiming libel had an interest inside the country. To prevent such a thing, foreign content would have to be filtered coming into the Canadian portion of the Internet.

That's not libel chill. That's libel freeze.

I am not arguing that any of this is advocated by Crookes. I do not know the man. Any understanding that I have is limited to the statements of claim he has submitted to the courts. I strongly suggest that Crookes himself is not relevant here. If it wasn't him doing this, it would eventually be someone else.

You can comment on the article at Geist's blog. The column appeared in day's Toronto Star at http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/208639

As sadly must be the case, comments are closed on this topic as I can't afford the liability. Go comment over at Geist's site.

While you still can.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/30/2007 02:45:00 PM

[Section 15] TEST

TEST

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/26/2007 05:26:00 PM