The Chuck Cadman Merged Thread

[IN HOC SIGNO]

But, Dion and Co. did not libel Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.   Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.   

He is the Captain of the ship and their webpage has printed libelous things which are un-substantiated by evidence. He actually did libel Harper outside the Commons...I watched it on the CTV news...they had to press him to be specific but he finally did accuse them of attempting to offer a bribe.

 

[stegner]

What it seems like to me is that the Liberals sense of entitlement has gotten the better of them.  When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.

Harper demanded on several occasions that the Governor General intervene and dismiss Martin.  Hardly principled.  If you read the previous posts on here you will see that he pulled the same stunts that Dion is now.  Except Dion is principled enough not to demand vice-regal intervention.

I watched it on the CTV news...they had to press him to be specific but he finally did accuse them of attempting to offer a bribe.

It's not libel until the courts say so.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Harper demanded on several occasions that the Governor General intervene and dismiss Martin.  Hardly principled.  If you read the previous posts on here you will see that he pulled the same stunts that Dion is now.  Except Dion is principled enough not to demand vice-regal intervention.

It's not libel until the courts say so.

:rofl:

 

[sgf]

Flip said

When Harper was in opposition he took a principaled and generally beneficial approach to opposing the government.

got any examples of that?

 

[stegner]

ROFL

Sorry what's your point? 

 

[Flip]

got any examples of that?

Not opposing the last liberal budget (to everyone's amazement).
I admit I might be a little biased, but it appears to me that the Liberals deserved everything they got and Harper didn't have to make stuff up, or libel or slander etc.

 

[sgf]

I fully agree Flip you may indeed be a little biased. Can you expand further on your statement about harper not opposing the last liberal budget? Do you mean by voting for it, much like Dion voted for the current budget??????

 

[aesop081]

Sorry what's your point? 

You said "its not libel until the courts say so"

Well, seems to me that the Liberals were quick to call it bribery before a court said so. Whats good for the goose.......

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry what's your point? 

I wasn't making one: your latest attempt at spin-doctoring (apparently completely devoid of irony) made me laugh out loud!  ;D

 

[aesop081]

I wasn't making one:

Sorry if i misinterpreted your " :rofl: " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry if i misinterpreted your " :rofl: " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.

You are essentially correct, however I was just noting the double-standard/irony rather than really commenting on the issue (not really a debate I want to get dragged into).

(I think the "Dion is principled enough ..." part is what really sent the beer through my nose)

 

[sgf]

I would say that Dion and Harper are equally as principled in fact most politicans in the current game seem to be cut from the same cloth.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

It's not libel until the courts say so.

That's like saying that someone hasn't been raped or murdered until the legal system finds someone guilty. Mr Dion made a statement which defamed Mr Harper and the Liberal Party has printed those same defamatory remarks on their website. If in fact they are found to be untrue then the Liberal Party will be found guilty and be on the hook for 2.5 million dollars in damages and court costs. The point being made here is that one must be careful that they have the facts before they go off half cocked accusing people of criminal behaviour.

 

[Flip]

No !

Do you mean by voting for it, much like Dion voted for the current budget???

Harper quietly and without rancour voted for the Liberal budget.
Dion, however goes to town on the conservative budget, makes a whole lot of noise which ultimately signified nothing.

Harper seems to mean what he says and seems to do what he means.
Dion, seems to have no idea what to do after he says what he thinks people want to hear.

 

[stegner]

You are essentially correct, however I was just noting the double-standard/irony rather than really commenting on the issue (not really a debate I want to get dragged into).

(I think the "Dion is principled enough ..." part is what really sent the beer through my nose)

Sorry if i misinterpreted your " ROFL " I had a good chuckle at stegner's comment too and i thought thats what you meant.

I am glad to give you gentlemen a chuckle  Of course there is a double standard it's politics. 

That's like saying that someone hasn't been raped or murdered until the legal system finds someone guilty. Mr Dion made a statmenet which defamed Mr Harper and the Liberal Party has printed those same defamatory remarks on their website. If in fact they are found to be untrue then the Liberal Party will be found guilty and be on the hook for 2.5 million dollars in damages and court costs. The point being made here is that one must be careful that they have the facts before they go off half cocked accusing people of criminal behaviour.

That's one way at looking at it.  By the way half a politicians job is making accusations half cocked. Harper was no saint when he was in opposition and made some doozies himself.   

 

[sgf]

No !
Harper quietly and without rancour voted for the Liberal budget.
Dion, however goes to town on the conservative budget, makes a whole lot of noise which ultimately signified nothing.

Harper seems to mean what he says and seems to do what he means.
Dion, seems to have no idea what to do after he says what he thinks people want to hear.

more than a little biased.. 

it all seemsto be in the eye of the beholder!

 

[RangerRay]

But, Dion and Co. did not libel Harper outside the House that is why Harper dropped them from the suit- Harper knew in this respect that he did not have a pot to piss in.   Mr. Harper have fun going after the Liberal Party though and let's hope they don't counter-sue for abuse of process.   

My guess is the reason the PM dropped the individual MP's from the lawsuit is so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot their legal bill.  

Since the Liberal Party of Canada is a private organisation, it cannot ask Parliament for funding, which MP's can do when sued individually.

Therefore, the Liberal Party, not the taxpayer, will now have to pay $2.5 million, should the PM's lawsuit be successful.  

From what I heard the MP's say on TV, they accused the PM of criminal behaviour, outside the the protection of the House.  Sounds like libel to me!

I stand by my saying that if the PM had something to hide, he would not go to court where witnesses can be called to testify under oath, documents subpoenaed, etc.

Citoyen Dion et al. flubbed up bigtime.

 

[sgf]

As I pointed out a few pages back, both the libs and cons will be paying their own legal bills from their own coffers but since each party is heavily funded by taxpayers. its the taxpayer that that once again will be on the hook.

By TIM NAUMETZ The Canadian Press
Wed. Mar 5 - 6:06 AM

OTTAWA — Taxpayers may be on the hook for over $1 million in legal fees if Prime Minister Stephen Harper forges ahead with his threat to sue Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and two other Liberals for libel.

A Liberal official said Tuesday the official Opposition is looking into the possibility of asking the House of Commons to pay legal fees for the three MPs, as the House has done in the past for a range of legal battles, including libel cases.

The Conservative party will be paying Harper’s legal fees, spokesman Ryan Sparrow said. But even then, considering that federal parties are now heavily funded by taxpayers through quarterly allowances, the public arguably foots a substantial part of the cost.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

As I pointed out a few pages back, both the libs and cons will be paying their own legal bills from their own coffers but since each party is heavily funded by taxpayers. its the taxpayer that that once again will be on the hook.

And as I said a few pages back, the notion that the taxpayers are on the hook because they fund the federal parties is horsesh*t!  Lawsuit or no lawsuit, the cost to the taxpayer is unchanged.

 

[sgf]

obviously i disagree..