All things Canadian.....

Warren Kinsella's post today:

October 18, 2004 - For those of you who are asking, the two conservative bloggers who (a) wrote that I was personally responsible for the death of Lieut. Chris Saunders, or (b) that my parents were "retarded" have removed the relevant posts and - in at least the latter case - expressed genuine, heartfelt regret. No legal action therefore necessary.
By way of conclusion, my view remains that the Internet is a cool new medium and all that - but it is a medium to which the law applies. If you or I libel someone, both of us had better be prepared to back up our allegations. Just because a blogger is uploading to an obscure web site in the comfort and safety of his/her darkened home office does not relieve him/her of the obligation to resist, say, falsely accusing someone of murder, or grossly defaming an innocent third party.
If that all makes me a censor, and someone who believes that there are bona fide limits to public discourse, I'll gladly take that rap. There are indeed limits, even out in the blogosphere.

He knows that his audience is much, much larger than the bloggers at issue or the conversations that have taken place since his threats. He can misrepresent those bloggers and very few people will know.

He can write sanctimoniously about the blogosphere all he wants but those that are willing to do a little bit of reading on the issues and have actually read others blogs know how much water his statements hold.

I have something else to write about.

In my original post on the threats, I wrote the following regarding Adscam since I thought, at the time, that was related to the reason he was threatening those bloggers....

Now, with the judicial inquiry underway to bring some light on the matter - and to determine whether or not 'all took place in the private sector' - Warren seems to take delight in undermining both Gomery and the inquiry. He wrote the following with respect to a contract Gomery gave to a forensic auditor:

September 27, 2004 - This morning, I read the Globe and Mail, and I found this story.
I'm certain there must be an explanation for this, bit I can't imagine what it would be.

There is also the strange coincidence that a number of people on his blogroll (on his front page) have posted about the fact that Gomery's daughter is a partner the same very large law firm as the lead counsel in the inquiry. Could the 'cult of Warren' be at work?

Now, I had thought this was pretty important but it didn't get mentioned again. Perhaps I was being a little subtle.

I used to be on Warren's blogroll on his front page - he removed me on Friday.

We had the following e-mails several weeks ago regarding the link I mentioned:

>From: "Warren Kinsella"
>To: "Don at talkcanada"
>Subject: RE: Hey dude - confidential
>Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:08:40 -0400
>
>She is indeed.
>
>Wonder how Ogilvy's got that sole-source, multi-million dollar assignment as commission counsel?
>
>What a coincidence.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Don at talkcanada [mailto:talkcanada@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:56 AM
>To: Warren Kinsella
>Subject: RE: Hey dude - confidential
>
>
>Is she John's daughter?
>
>Don.
>
>
> >From: "Warren Kinsella"
> >To:
> >Subject: Hey dude - confidential
> >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:59:39 -0400
> >
> >Was going to put this up on my site, and then thought it might be something
> >we could have fun with in the blogosphere. Just don't source me. Over to
> >you:
> >* This [LINK: http://www.ogilvyrenault.com/en/biographies/bio.jsp?id=4905
> >] is an interesting coincidence. When you consider this [LINK:
> >http://radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/nouvelles/200409/07/001-commission-gomery.shtml
> > ].
> >
> >
> >Warren Kinsella, LL.B
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)
> >(omitted)


My final reply, which he didn't reply to, said basically that I didn't think it was relevant and I wouldn't be blogging anything about it.

Another thing that I found a little coincidental - though it may have been - was that Warren added this to his October 7th musing just hours (or less) after I sent my final reply to him - I'm an anonymous blogger btw:

Oh, and I have received a very nice letter from one of the many lawyers helping out the Gomery Commission, indicating I might get asked to pop by “in the near future.” Personally, I can't wait. I don't know anything about sponsorship, but I sure know a lot about a particular company!

(And get ready for a lot of anti-Warren anonymous source stuff in the days leading up to my Ottawa visit...it's how they operate, you know.)

About his e-mail.

It looks like the mail was sent to many people on a BCC as there was no name in the 'To:' field and as I mentioned, it did turn up on several blogger's sites.
Also, the information looks like it was sent to Warren by someone else - the syntax is unusual and the writing does flow from the start to where the links are.

But most important, the substance is very disturbing.

Discreditting Gomery discredits his findings.
Some Liberals would rather subvert the judicial inquiry than 'find the truth'. They wouldn't mind the inquiry to be known as a witch hunt - they wouldn't mind every story to be written about Gomery and the inquiry to include the phrase "meanwhile, questions have been raised about Justice Gomery's actions and potential conflicts of interest, including sole sourcing of contracts to a law firm with connections to his own family".
It is reasonable to consider that the best way to deflect criticism of Chretien/Martin/Liberals is to play on people's apathy - "they are all crooked - even the judges"

Maybe I'm being too harsh on Warren - he just wanted to "have fun" in the blogosphere.
Sure, his e-mail requested confidentiality. I didn't say I would give it to him.

If writing all of this makes me an untrustworthy person, and someone who believes that there are bona fide limits to how politicians and their attack dogs act, I'll gladly take that rap. There are indeed limits, even out in the blogosphere.

And besides, I'm an anonymous blogger - it's how I operate.

# posted @ 10/18/2004 01:26:00 p.m.