It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Private Property=Child Labour
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Leaders Debate
Harper
Martin
Liberals
Conservatives
Duffy Slaps Out Duffy
Liberals release new series of attack ads
One of the ads however, suggesting Harper would put military personnel in Canadian cities, was later pulled, with the Liberal Party saying the ad had been circulated in error.
Harper spent more time on that in his post debate scrum than on the debate. Duffy, John tried to talk about something else, anything else when confronted about the ad by Duffy, Mike. Not important lets talk about soemthing else sez Duffy to Duffy. But Duffy, Mike gets upset and says it is news and news is his job as a journalist and then he lets the cat outta the bag.
During a break apparently Duffy, John, Liberal hack, told Duffy, Mike, CTV hack, not to talk about the ad. In fact during the on air discussion, Duffy, Mike, got red in the face and bitchslapped Duffy, John, on national TV saying that his dismisal of the ad as no big deal, not newsworthy, was an out and out lie, and that he had tried to pressure Mike not to talk about it. Wow. That should give Blogging Tory's pause. Here was usually pro-Liberal Duffy, Mike, attacking Liberal official Duffy, John.
When is an ad not an ad. Well according to John when it isn't bought and paid for and aired. This particular ad, part of a series of them, was posted on the Liberal website for all of us to view, and on CTV. So when is it not an ad, when it is like a draft document, or some plans you don't release says Duffy, John. Well not quite there John boy. The ad ran. On the internet. Thats advertising. See just check all those pop ups. Thats advertising too. So yes you did run it. Even for a few hours or a day , its an ad.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Leaders Debate
Harper
Martin
Liberals
Conservatives
CTV
A Note To Quebec Voters
Why Harper win won't faze Charest
Charest imposes contract on public sector workers
Charest's first two years as premier were marked by stiff and vocal opposition to his policies by Quebec labour unions. The antagonism and negativity shared between his government and public sector employees, as well as his failure so far to cut taxes as promised, has left Charest sharply unpopular amongst the general public. Many have suggested, however, that Charest may make a run for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada should current leader Stephen Harper falter in the federal election in January 2006.
Charest says he knew nothing about Option Canada
Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2006QUEBEC - Premier Jean Charest says he knew nothing about the creation of the little-known federalist group Option Canada during the 1995 referendum campaign.
He was leader of the federal Tories at the time of Quebec's sovereignty referendum and participated in the No side's campaign.
Charest said he and others named in a book about Option Canada's existence and spending
habits during the referendum are being unfairly targeted. Referendum book ignites firestorm
Gadzooks that sounds just like the Liberals excuses for the Income Trust leak.
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Harper
Charest
Quebec
Liberals
Conservatives
Nationalize the Oil Industry
And Layton side steps the question.
There's nothing like the big oil companies to get Canadian politicians twitchy. Mind you, Jack Layton does not like to be reminded that one of his candidates wants to nationalize the big oil companies. That is going a bit far for a comfortably squishy New Democrat; taxing is one thing, but nationalizing, no, not today.
Still Layton and Gilles Duceppe are fast to support public transit and stop tax gifts to the oil companies. That's where the line gets drawn in the debate, at least on that subject. Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are not going to get into any rough talk about the oil companies. Instead they agree on Martin's soft promise of "other options" to settle Canada's energy problems. —JG
- REALITY CHECK: Energy gluttons? Who us?
Duceppe says the Harper gave billions and will give billions more in tax breaks to Big Oil. Good shot. Duceppe says BQ called for subsidizing gas for the poor, workers, truckers, taxi cab drivers, by eliminating tax breaks to Big Oil. Asked if he believes the Market controls oil prices, wait for it, Martin says Non.
Ok so who does? Why the state of course. Harper says the provincial state....but the state none the less....so why not nationalize it under worker and community control?
No real answer here as to why we shouldn't. Just good old capitalist apologetics and fear of Alberta's NEP hysterics.
Also see: Oil Crisis
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Leaders Debate
Harper
Martin
Layton
Duceppe
Liberals
NDP
Conservatives
BQ
oil
nationalization
Harper Is About Choice....Except....
Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Leaders Debate
Harper
Martin
Layton
Duceppe
Liberals
NDP
Conservatives
BQ
The Future of Werner Patels
I requested blog sites to cease supporting and publishing his rantings, he remains a member of the Green Bloggers as well as being a member of Peters Politics aggregator.
He now appeared again on Canada Conversation, but in another of his multipleblogpersonalities, this time as "The Future of Alberta" blog.
Is this the kind of person you want blogging on your aggregate reader? I would hope not. And I would hope his mutlipleblog personalities would be removed post haste from access to Canadian Conversation, Breen Bloggers and Peter's Politics.
On the Future of Alberta he posted this defamatory comment, and it is indeed defamatory under Canadian law Herr Patels.
Another case of criminal libel involves an individual by the name of Eugene Plawiuk, in Edmonoton. A self-described communist, he, for some reason, feels the need to post silly articles about me, in which he lies about things I supposedly wrote or did not write, and he too incorrectly assigns ownership of other sites to me.
For Herr Patels sake I have some experience as a published writer, an editor of several publications, a former Vice President of Canadian University Press, and one who has experienced both ends of the defamation laws in Canada. There is defamation and there is libel but there is no such a thing as 'criminal libel'.
Because blogging is considered a form of media, I have published the Media Guide to Libel and Defamation below.
In the left hand corner of the sidebar of my blog you will see that I use the term, This Is A Fair Comment Blog and I use the defense of Truth.
So Herr Patels if you believe you have been defamed take it too a lawyer spend some money and weep cause it will get you nowhere. The truth hurts I know, but there is not much you can do as long as you publish your blogs and comments, I have the right to respond as this is public space and public debate. So put up or shut up.
As for the Truth, the other defense I claim in my right to publish, I do not and never have incorrectly attributed ownsership of sites to you. In my Fair Comment blog articles have correctly attributed some of the following sites to Werner Patels. Here is a complete list;
Calgary Observer (defunct slandered and defamed other bloggers had to shut down, now known as Alberta Avenue)
Alberta Avenue
The Future of Alberta
Alberta Liberal (aka Werner Patels Running For Alberta, Running For Alberta)
Abacus Translation Services
Translator: German-English-German & Spanish-English
Learn English - Learn German
Abacus Blogs
Welcome to Abacus Translation Services (old Site when Werner lived in Toronto in 2003)
Alberta-Canada Now (defunct slandered and defamed other bloggers had to shut down)
Google Search of Werner Patels
Welcome to the Internet Herr Patels where you can be tracked.
His claim that Alberta Avenue is an online magazine and he is just a contributor is another example of his pathological personality. If you check out his page Learn English - Learn German you will find that it is the same layout design template as Alberta Avenue.
And as Herr Patels has shown once again he pop's up with another blog once he is challenged and criticised for harassment and stalking of bloggers he opposes. This from someone who claims to be a professional translator who specializes in 'law' ! Herr Patels is obsessed with attacking people he disagrees with. Period. Along with his multipleblog personalities this is another aspect of his pathological condition.
Which he has done in the past and there is public documentation to this effect. For example;
He attacks fellow Albert Blogger Grandinite.Censure Werner
We have been had. A well known member of the Canadian blogsphere spent the past year or so lying about who he was, who he represented and the nature of his opinions. This morning, he admitted to me that it was all part of some "experiment". When I think about this, I am just sick about how much this sort of immaturity hurts the credibility of blogs. I hope that bloggers from all parties will agree with me that for this sham, the former Calgary Observer and current AlbertaAvenue deserves to be censured.
He attempts to get Blogging Tory CIVITATENSIS FIRED!
Last August he was a tried and True Liberal, attacking Alberta, today he is a Tried and True Alberta Conservative attacking Ottawa. My what a difference a few months make for Herr Patels. Flip flop indeed, the term Kook was used to describe him and not by me.He has managed to tick off everyone equally. Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives and yes this Libertarian Communist.
Herr Patels is a one man Flame war not only in the Alberta and Canadian political blogosphere but in his own professional community.
He trashed ProZ.com - Directory of Professional Translation Services by Freelance Language Translators & Translation Agencies. in a letter to Translation Journal in 2002 to which one of the moderators replied;
ProZ—Pro & Con (again)Herr Patels was accused of Flaming, ( we have all experienced that) and Racism over his comments he made regarding non English speaking Translators;
I noticed Mr. Werner George Patels wrote a rather nasty letter about ProZ com. While he's, of course, entitled to whatever views he may hold, you may want to know that he's been 'evicted'/'expelled'/'ousted'... from ProZ.com on two different occasions after careful consideration by a.o. the ProZ moderators (there are about 100 moderators now).
k’alebøl » Translation bidding systems
Any site that does impose minimum prices would be discriminating against workers who are able to produce more for less because they are better translators or because they live in cheaper countries. (Werner Patels, the trade’s biggest price maintenance flamer, is openly racist in this respect).
To which he replied, and all of a sudden I am having a Deja Vu flash;
His attacks on me however have gone beyond comments on my blog or comments about my blog. He has taken to contacting people and threatening, this is stalking and harassment. Stalking and harassment Herr Patels are criminal acts. Stalking on the internet has consequences. Internet Harassment is a criminal act.You have been advised.
Werner G. Patels cease and desist in contacting anyone associated with me, cease and desist in refering to me by name (Eugene Plawiuk) or by my blogs name in your blogs, or any other public pronouncements that may be published by you.
Should you continue to do so I will be forced to take action in this regard.
LIBEL AND DEFAMATION
It's the civil aspect of libel that is most likely to affect the modern media. This is the non-criminal circumstance that arises when an individual feels he or she has been damaged by published information or comment, and seeks relief ($) from the courts.
If material is accurate and fair and prepared with normal professional care, the chances of being landed with a libel suit will be minimal, especially if the media person exercises some common sense and issues an immediate retraction, correct errors and apologize for the mistake if a statement that could be construed as defamatory is made.
1. Defamation is the umbrella term for libel and slander. Libel involves publication of defamatory matter in permanent form; slander involves publication of defamatory matter in transitory form. Thus, spoken defamation, uttered over the back fence, constitutes slander, while broadcast defamation constitutes libel (more serious than slander).
2. Libel is the false broadcast or publication communicated through words, pictures, sounds or gestures that harms a person's reputation by exposure to hate, ridicule or contempt in the minds of the average member of the community. Forms of harm include: damage to personal reputation, social contacts, and occupation. Ridicule and contempt are forms of damage. Some words used in a description can be libelous such as crook, slut, murderer etc.
False names are not necessarily protection if the circumstances are well known. A person's name does not have to be broadcast to be identified. Pictures, voice impersonations, physical descriptions, actions mimicked or described, specific job descriptions, addresses given, circumstances described, innuendo, omissions, extrinsic facts, can lead to identification.
Watch Those Guests and Callers
In law, liability for defamation doesn't depend on whether a media outlet shares or agrees with the opinion of guests or callers, it depends on whether it "publishes" the opinion-and "publishes" in this context means broadcasts or conveys to the public. Causing the opinion to be broadcast on the airwaves will be publication, so if it is defamatory, the media outlet, not the guest or caller, is exposed to liability regardless of whether it agrees with the opinion, and regardless of whether it has issued disclaimers.
Legal Defenses in a Libel Action
In all jurisdictions, the media person who has been hauled into court as defendant in a libel action has three basic courses of defense. However, if malice is proved it could defeat most defenses. Malice is intentional ill will in libel. It could involve a reckless disregard of the facts.
1. The Truth
Such a defense seems simple enough, but "the burden of proof rests upon the defendant." If proven, truth is an absolute defense that cannot be defeated by malice.2. Fair Comment
Statements of opinion made upon matters of public interest fall under the protection of this defense (fair comment) if they are made in good faith and without malice. It must be a comment, it must be fair, it must be based on facts, it must be of public interest, there must be no malice.3. Absolute and Qualified Privilege
There are some specific situations in which journalists enjoy the indirect benefit of complete protection, absolute privilege, regardless of the fundamentally libelous nature of works reported. There are other situations where journalists may benefit from a similar, but more limited protection, usually described in the law as qualified privilege. Qualified privilege can be defeated by malice!Absolute Privilege: applies only to media coverage of court proceedings. Must be fair and accurate, without comment. Must be broadcast contemporaneously with the proceedings. Must provide a reasonable statement of explanation or contradiction on behalf of the plaintiff.
Qualified Privilege: a fair and accurate report of a legislative body (parliament), public administrative body (CRTC), a commission of inquiry constituted by a public authority, a meeting of any public authority in Canada (PUC), a meeting to discuss any matter of public concern whether admission is general or restricted, a notice given for public information by any aforementioned public authority, also art, science, religion, learning, trade, business, industry, professional, game sport or pastime organization.
Tags
Canada
blogs
Werner Patels
Alberta Avenue
Alberta
Politics
Could It Be Satan
Remember when you ruined your record collection and stereo needle trying to find all those hidden Satanic messages in Led Zepplins; Stair Way To Heaven. Welcome to the digital age. Albertan finds Satan in music downloads Say it ain't so.
I always thought of Bill Gates as Moloch but Steve Jobs is Satan, who knew!
April 22nd, 2005 at 15:32
Saying that a certain group of people are not native speakers of English is not racism.
You are making it very easy for me to sue you. In fact, I can have you charged with criminal libel.