Er... and now you've just repeated the alleged libel.

Posted by: Bob Tarantino at February 14, 2006 06:25 PM

---

Good points made in this post. Got me past the knee-jerk reaction and really made me read the statements in question.

"Kinsella was the guy who foisted Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy. He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal."

This statement is ambiguous. It does not clearly define who the key actor was and therein lies the problem. Just for the record when I read it I assumed the “he� referred to Chuck Guite, but I don’t think everyone would.

Like you stated Steve… Mr. Bourrie might want to think about offering an apology and quickly. Most of us know if you have to eat crow, it’s best eaten warm rather than cold.

Posted by: litre at February 14, 2006 06:29 PM

---

Bob, reporting about a libel, in particular repeating the allegation, as long as it is clear that it is an allegation, rather than a statement of fact as in the original case, is not libelous.

Its not particularly nice, but its not libelous.

As for the question of Warren's case, as long as he can prove a) that its not true (which should be easy, he wasn't even in government when it began) and b) that it was damaging to his reputation (which might be harder, since a single blogger's statement isn't likely to be very harmful unless picked up by someone else - but he still has a good shot at it), then Warren has himself a slam dunk of a case.

Posted by: paulm at February 14, 2006 06:47 PM

---

The blog's author has pointed out that the "he" in question is Guite, not Kinsella.

Posted by: Paul O at February 14, 2006 06:52 PM

---

Given that Kinsella wrote a memo strongly suggesting that Guite be given conduct of the file he most certainly was, to a degree, involved as an actor in the events surrounding Adscam.

However, Steve, there is a rather more significant point here - this is essentially an attempt to use the Courts to stiffle legitimate speech. Rather than arguing with or disproving what Mark wrote, Kinsella is suing him.

This is precisely the sort of case which needs to be fought hard by the Canadian blogosphere. Kinsella has tried similar tactics in the past. People have rolled over. Mark is not about to roll over and he needs our support.

Posted by: Jay Currie at February 14, 2006 06:59 PM

---

Taking a look at his site I don't think he has the intention of offering an apology any time soon.

Posted by: Platty at February 14, 2006 07:30 PM

---

I don't thing there's a legitimate claim here:

certainly no damages, and likely no libelous statement.

Liable involves a tad more than being wrong about something.

In my opinion the claim is an abuse of process.

Posted by: biff at February 14, 2006 07:34 PM

---

"He" was ambiguous, and that certainly requires a major correction in of itself. I don't know how many times I've rewritten entire drafts because I realized that it was too easy to lose track of who was whom over the course of the twists and turns of a story.

But besides that, do you really believe this suit was a bolt out of the blue? I have to think there was an initial contact to address the issue that was rebuffed.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 14, 2006 07:34 PM

---

hey, steve, they're lawyers! when were you on the wrong side of one? they don't take apologies when they want a pound of flesh. this is serious. put yourself in Ottawa Watch's place (not that your pronoun attribution is sloppy). let's say you made a mistake and the butchers just wouldn't stop no matter the bleating. your entire life can very easily slide into caca land. kinsella is an egregious bully. what's that cost me? we're all sheep? we need to circle the wagons on this (already rich) twerp. i must be down for $500k by now. ouch.

Posted by: Ottawa Core at February 14, 2006 07:35 PM

---

The suggestion is that the notice of intent was the first contact, and when it was received the blogger in question adjusted the post to insert the proper noun "Guite" for the pronoun "He". No ambiguity remains in that source, although your post has re-created such ambiguity by not citing the adjusted source and not even acknowledging the ambiguity in your main post.

Posted by: Paul O at February 14, 2006 08:25 PM

---

when were you on the wrong side of one?

As long I have the truth behind me, I don't care who I'm on the wrong side of. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, then I've wrong someone, and myself too. I should fix it.

they don't take apologies when they want a pound of flesh.

Maybe. But I think that depends on the individual, lawyer or not.

this is serious

Very serious.

let's say you made a mistake and the butchers just wouldn't stop no matter the bleating. your entire life can very easily slide into caca land.

But you're constructing a situation that doesn't exist. No apologies seem to have been offered then rejected. We don't know that the suit would go forward "no matter" what was done. Assuming a court would allow such a suit to continue after the problem was addressed.

we're all sheep

Sheep are herd animals. When a member of the herd is injured, it is left behind to sate the appetite of the predators. Humans are pack animals. Pack animals aid each other. I'm trying to help. It might not be the answer you like, but I think it's good advice.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 14, 2006 08:28 PM

---

Steve:

Your advice to Bourrie appears sound. I usually advise clients that successfully defending a lawsuit is often a hollow victory, given the time, significant resources and emotional costs of actually litigating the matter.

As to the fact that Kinsella left public service prior to the sponsorship program commencing, that is a fact. I recall, however, that documentation was tabled before the Commons committee looking at the sponsorship matter outlined that Kinsella wrote a memo recommending that Guite be placed in charge of handling federal advertising. That position later morphed into handling the sponsorship file.

However, precision in publication of pieces such as Bourrie wrote is really important, and the piece is somewhat sloppy as written.

Oh, and Jay...if something is proven to be libelous and can be demonstrated as causing damage to another, it ain't free speech any more...

Posted by: Bruce at February 14, 2006 09:07 PM

---

Kinsella is a publically popular person now and his attack on a publically unknown blogger is an attack on free speach! Allowing public officials to have the same legal powers to sue as the rest of the unwashed masses should be changed. People with power should not be allowed to get the upper hand against those who object! Kinsella chose public life and as such the public is watching and his powers to silence the public and individuals should be removed in our charter.

Posted by: Affliction at February 14, 2006 09:31 PM

---

Bob, reporting about a libel, in particular repeating the allegation, as long as it is clear that it is an allegation, rather than a statement of fact as in the original case, is not libelous.

Unless I've really misunderstood defamation law in Ontario, that's not true, or, more accurately, it's not applicable in this case. Interested persons are encouraged to peruse the Libel and Slander Act (Ontario) [which can be found here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l12_e.htm] to see if Steve falls under one of the available privileges. I didn't make my comment to be snarky, I made it because I consider Steve a friend and I don't want him to inadvertantly be subject to the shifting whims of the plaintiff in this matter.

I don't thing there's a legitimate claim here: certainly no damages

One of the charming aspects of defamation law in Ontario is that there is no requirement on the plaintiff to prove damages.

Posted by: Bob Tarantino at February 14, 2006 09:59 PM

---

Right or wrong, it is a stern warning to bloggers everywhere - people do read our work and will take us to account on falsehoods. When making the kind of claim Bourrie made it might be best to link to or quote some actual supporting documentation. This is no different than essay writing.

Posted by: Cynapse at February 14, 2006 11:16 PM

---

I think the suit is without merit, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.

But I do know that if it reaches court, it will throw sponsorship back onto the agenda. Do Kinsella and his friends REALLY want another round of lawyers asking them questions about the machinations of the sponsorship scandal?

I think this one would be wise for Warren to drop.

Posted by: JL at February 14, 2006 11:56 PM

---

"A memo tabled Wednesday made it clear Guite was recommended for the job by the office of Dave Dingwall, then federal public works minister. Warren Kinsella, who served as Dingwall’s chief of staff, wrote on Nov. 23, 1995 — less than a month after the referendum — that “recent experience� had shown the need to centralize federal ad strategy.

The same centralized approach should apply to public opinion polling and other communications programs, he said.

Public Works was the logical department to review past practices and put new procedures in place, Kinsella wrote.

“In my view Mr. J. C. Guite … should be assigned to carry out this review on a full-time basis,� he told Ran Quail, the deputy minister at Public Works.

“It is requested that he (Guite) be assigned to a position that will allow him to carry out these tasks.� ctv Not in the least bit criminal or unethical; but certainly the actions of a key actor, memo writing division.

Posted by: Jay Currie at February 15, 2006 12:06 AM

---

Bob: Steve isn't repeating the claims, he's quoting what the claims were. And if anything above and beyond reprinting them, he's refuting the claims.

Perhaps you should read what Steve wrote instead of just concentrating on what he quoted and you'd see how silly your position is right now.

Posted by: Surecure at February 15, 2006 12:22 AM

---

The pronoun 'he' would refer to the last name mentioned.

Lawsuits have been mentioned by other Liberals during this endgame period. It serves as a pre-emptive innoculation I expect, because few people can afford the process, regardless of the cause of the case.

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, re 'democracy' and so forth, when lawsuit threats start to fly, it indicates that the quality of the political debate has diminished.

Posted by: brock at February 15, 2006 12:44 AM

---

Kinsella is a publically popular person now and his attack on a publically unknown blogger is an attack on free speach!

It's speech! Not speach! Speech! SPEECH, for crying out loud!

Posted by: pheenster at February 15, 2006 01:31 AM

---

"He" was ambiguous, and that certainly requires a major correction in of itself."

Ottawa watch DID make a correction to "He". Read the original post again in January. Bourrie corrected it to read Guite. Besides, it is common knowledge that Guite, not Kinsella, was more involved with the sponsership scandal, which makes the "He" to seem to be obviously referring to Guite.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is that the correction was made for the offending lines to refer to Guite, not Kinsella.

Posted by: Jonathan at February 15, 2006 02:18 AM

---

You know, In all honesty I don't think Kinsella has any chance here.... I think it is fair to say he was a Key Actor, if in fact he did hire Chuck Guite. He may never have did anything bad intenioned, but you could easily argue he was a key player because of his hiring of Chuck Guite.

It would be like if Charlie Villanueva, Joey Graham and Rafael Araujo led the Toronto Raptors to an NBA championship in 3 years.... and someone was to say that Rob Babcock was a key player in them winning the championship.

Also, he said "a" key player, not "the" key player. Which would be acurate IMO.

Posted by: Allan MacInnis at February 15, 2006 06:29 AM

---

I couldn't agree with you alalysis more Steven...

Kinsella or anyone else for that matter need to be protected from these kind of vicious, groundness, inuendo.

Posted by: WarHammer at February 15, 2006 06:48 AM

---

I couldn't agree with you analysis more Steven...

Kinsella or anyone else for that matter needs to be protected from this kind of vicious, groundless, innuendo.

Posted by: WarHammer at February 15, 2006 06:51 AM

---

Ed Morrissey of CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS has a very different take on the matter than yourself, Steve (see http://www.captainsquartersblog.com). He notes:

"[I]t appears that the entire fuss centers on the pronoun he and whether it refers to Guité or to Kinsella. Kinsella argues that Bourrie intended on defaming him as a "major player" in Adscam, but any reasonable reading of the passage appears to clearly reference Guité, not Kinsella, as such. And it isn't as though Kinsella had nothing to do with Adscam or Guité's role in it, although it was more minor. As the Gomery Report notes in one of its seventeen references to Kinsella, he arranged one of the more notorious meetings that made clear that Guité needed to cater to powerful Chrétién cronies....

"Kinsella stepped way out of line in attempting to order Quail to put Guité in charge of the advertising for the Sponsorship program -- and Guité eventually became one of the major players in the fraud that wiped out millions from Canadian taxpayers. It may not make Kinsella a major player in the controversy, but it hardly follows that tying Kinsella to Guité creates a libelous situation. Perhaps he didn't push to hire Guité, but the Gomery Report shows that Kinsella spent some effort in promoting him for the top spot.

"I expect that Kinsella will regret filing this lawsuit. His role in this scandal appears to have flown under the radar until now, and Bourrie's defense will have a field day answering Kinsella with these quotes."

Any rebuttal points?

Posted by: Stephen J. at February 15, 2006 09:50 AM

---

Steve, you never fail to amaze me. You go the wall for the right to defame members of the Muslim religion, allegedly in defence of "free speech," and then let down a fellow blogger who is being bullied by that preening idiot Warren Kinsella.

There is simply no case here. Mark's counter-claim will likely succeed. WK has thrown his weight around for far too long, and he's about to get his ass severely kicked. Sorry we won't be seeing you at the victory party.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 15, 2006 10:31 AM

---

Just one correction: you go to the wall to insult the members of the Muslim religion, to defame their Prophet, and to commit blasphemy...

Same point holds, though. You appear to have a very selective view of freedom of speech.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 15, 2006 10:35 AM

---

Like I said, I give these blogs maybe 2 to 3 years before things start to get a 'little hot' for them.

Not Islamic forces, but our own home grown inbred legal system. Laywers and judges.

Of course they can't go after all the bloggers, just the 'big ones' like Steve's here or SDA and so on.

Or easier yet, send a letter to Telus, Shaw or whoever the ISP is and hold them accountable.

Don't think it could happen? It is already happening.

Then again we'd NEVER be like China and filter key words out of Google and MSN search engines right?

Right...

Posted by: tomax at February 15, 2006 11:08 AM

---

It was so cold the other day I saw my lawyer walking around with his hands in his own pockets.

tomax...Personally I don't consider SDA to be 1 of the big ones. Kate is a mouthy know-it-all that likes her ass kissed by about the 20 or so faithful that post there. Don't dare challenge her or someone will scream 'flame' and if you persist you'll get your server forbidden. Sheesh, what a pussy.

Steve rules! He can dish it out as well as take it. However, everyone should make sure there's good documentation to back up what they say.

Posted by: Ron at February 15, 2006 11:37 AM

---

After Kinsella finished his time as David Dingwall's Executive Assistant, he moved on to work for an ad firm in BC.

Gomery documents prove that Kinsella contacted Guite over this time period while Kinsella worked for the BC ad company.

How often did Kinsella meet with Guite over this period?

Did they ever discuss business between Guite's shop and the ad firm Kinsella was working for?

Did the ad firm contribute $10,000.00 to Kinsella failed election campaign in 1997?

Posted by: at February 15, 2006 11:44 AM

---

"Just one correction: you go to the wall to insult the members of the Muslim religion, to defame their Prophet, and to commit blasphemy..."

Blasphemy? You're going to start demanding we don't commit blasphemy? Christ, that's moronic.

Angry's wrong on the Kinsella thingy, by the way.

Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle at February 15, 2006 02:03 PM

---

Why not start, then, with repealing Canada's anti-blasphemy laws?

I'm simply trying to make the point that Steve is being somewhat selective as to when "free speech" applies, and when it doesn't.

I oppose anti-blasphemy laws, by the way.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 15, 2006 02:06 PM

---

The pronoun issue is silly.

Actually, using the word 'foist' is what got my attention.

"Kinsella was the guy who _foisted_ Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy"

Foist:

1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy.
2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery.
3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully.

I've never heard of any evidence which credibly demonstrated that Kinsella was of a fraudulent or deceitful mindset when he recommended Guite for the posting.

Could be a fair comment defense in there though.

Bourrie's blog also allows comments. That allows Kinsella to offer rebuttal. Did he?

Posted by: Mark [Section 15] at February 15, 2006 02:43 PM

---

A foisted B on the bureaucracy. B was a key actor in C. C is about half the reason for D.

Clear enough? Case dismissed.

Posted by: lrC at February 15, 2006 02:56 PM

---

There is a lot of discussion here about what constitutes libel/defamation and what are the available defences. For the benefit and interest of all, I've posted a brief primer of Canadian libel law over at Cerberus.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 15, 2006 03:16 PM

---

Blogs are opinion nothing else, give your head a shake, the guy is shit for brains, I said it go ahead and sue me.

Posted by: Momorider at February 15, 2006 03:52 PM

---

Man, what a pleasure to see my two absolute favourite people on the blogosphere, at each other's throats! Talk about your two stoats in a sack.

Kinsella insists he's taking this all the way, so watch for him to collapse immediately. But it's been a long time since anybody's taken a good serious poke at Bourrie, and his reactions are not readily predictable. I believe he's entitled to ask for Warren's home address on discovery.

As for the merits? Who the hell cares? Warren's never been a "key actor" in anything, unless it was high school theatrics, so he's had his reputation enhanced, not blackened. But so what? The actual issue is - just how hard will it be to find a Liberal-appointed judge who wants to thank Warren for his services to the party?

Posted by: ebt at February 15, 2006 04:01 PM

---

The golden rule applies on the internet as it does in life.

The question really is has Kinsella offended any other individuals on the internet or in other forums more than the bourie statement in question.

The answer to any reasonable independent follower of politics is yes.

Posted by: at February 15, 2006 05:18 PM

---

It does seem that WK has never considered that hundreds of bloggers might start pouring over HIS blog to find examples of "libel".

Any bets as to whether or not they'll find any?

Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at February 15, 2006 05:54 PM

---

Kinsella is a liberal douchebag and his "tollerant" liberal ideals is what got our government into this mess in the first place. He was in the loop of the goings on of our government yet he did not object or question the policies of the burocracy! What a great Canadian... NOT! Kinsella made his bed and now he will lie in it because he deserves to be exposed.

Posted by: Affliction at February 15, 2006 08:00 PM

---

"Is he thin-skinned? I don't think so."

Please...think so.

The most important thing to WK is not being a Liberal or his Liberal ideals, its his manufactured rep as the Liberal Party's Luca Brasi. The only thing in memory that he's really famuous for is the whole Barneyn the dinosaur act against Stickwell day. Thereafter you had the image of the Prince of Asskicking in Canadian politics.

I remember when a columnist in the Post a while back printed something about WK spewing venom, WK wrote in to complain and he made his point by...spewing venom. I hope he gets his ass kicked in court. I dont know or care if he had anything to do with the shenanigans in Quebec, but in his day he displayed alot of the sanctimonious bullying endemic to Liberal Party members....like John Duffy. and of course bullys are usually bulys becuase they're pussies.

Posted by: noblerogue at February 15, 2006 10:21 PM

---

Who wins? Who loses?

Frankly I don't care after I saw one comment reflecting on the fact that it possible that evidence will be submitted to prove innocence or guilt surrounding the scandal in question. Warren may finally get his opportunity to clear his name (and point the finger at the Earnscliffe gang) and Bourrie will be free to submit all the evidence that was deemed inadmissable under para k of the Gomery Inquiry.

Posted by: gimbol at February 16, 2006 07:03 AM

---

I think about that all the time... one of these days I'm certain Hamas is going to sue me for defamation of character.

Posted by: Tovya at February 16, 2006 07:43 PM

---

Careful reading of this thread has been interesting and fun, but, I admit my powers of analisys has come up with clouded results.

EBT*s element ...
The actual issue is - just how hard will it be to find a Liberal-appointed judge who wants to thank Warren for his services to the party?

If Warren has that covered, then Bourrie is in deep water. Warren is a loyal Chretienite.

Not being a computer hacker, I can't look up WK*s web surfing log again at will, but I did happen to get it up on my screen once. Not sure how. Guess I could go search back and bring up the archived screen.

There were some interesting sites visited but many people have surfed to sites of unusual standing and you never know if it is intentional or accidental.

Just a point of interest for someone who has more computer skill than I and who is mature enough to keep information found private until verified or colaberated with matching info.

Servers somewhere have a copy of everything you do on the web. That*s why I am such a saint, doncha know. If you know how to ask... Google will answer TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 16, 2006 11:33 PM

---

Kinsella may be reacting appropriately in this case, but he is definitely thin-skinned. A good look at his musings will show how much he gloats at the slightest mention of him when it's good, and cries foul when it's bad. The guy's a head-case. Joan Tintor's blog entry on "Campaign Not-so-confidential" is a good read.

Posted by: gos' at February 20, 2006 11:42 AM

---