|
In Round One of Free Speech Survivor, the bloggers at LawIsCool have decided to vote themselves off the island:
All of this has resulted in us reviewing the situation and deciding that we will no longer be carrying content related to the Maclean’s case or Mark Steyn. Any legal information that appears similar to the case after this point is pure coincidental. Anyone posting under this name on other sites can assumed to be fraudulent.
The complainants in the case, of which only one is represented here in part, should be setting up their own site soon. Please hop over and take your feeding frenzy over there, and let us resume our academic discourse in peace.
Or, as Kathy Shaidle puts it, "the nelliepussyfairies at LawIsCool concede defeat." Actually, I believe that should be "the anonypussynelliemilqueytoastypantywaistyfairyprincesses at LawIsCool", but let's not get hung up on formalities. Jay Currie is inclined to be more generous:
Too bad you could not stand the virtual heat kids - you were getting writing tips from some of the best in the business (and God knows you need them), learning a bit about advocacy in the internet sandbox and, I suspect, discovering the value of pushing back. All are useful lessons... Sure we play rough; but we respect people who fight their corner. By quitting you’ve proven you can’t even do that.
They make an interesting contrast with their fellow lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
The LawIsCool fellows adopted the line of the plaintiffs that all they want is to "start a debate", but, in fact, they're incapable of it. By way of example, let us consider the non-anonymous pussy of the day, Terry Downey. Mr Downey [CORRECTION: Just for the record, Mr Downey turns out to be Ms Downey] is an executive honcho with the Ontario Federation of Labour, who in an effort to be lead eunuch in the Islamist harem, are supporting Dr Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress. When news of the OFL's backing was made public, a Maclean's reader wrote as follows:
Dear Mr. Downey:
I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that you would use the front of the OFL to support the CIC in their complaint against "Macleans" magazine. The CIC complaint appears baseless and in my opinion, deserves a counter-suit of both discrimination against MacLeans and a friviolous suit. In my opinion, the CIC complaint is nothing more than a submission to a perceived bleeding heart weak organization to suppress the truth and any criticism (freedom of speech)about the real or perceived dangers and concerns of spreading Islam across the western world.
Shame on you and the CIC!
Here is Ms Downey's reply in full :
From: "Terry Downey" tdowney@ofl.ca
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: CIC-HRC complaint/Macleans-mark steyn article
Shame on you! Please do not email me again with your harrassing messages!!
Hey, who's harrassing whom? Before her present eminence, Ms Downey was a "human rights investigator". She "harrassed" free-born citizens for a living. Yet she can't take one polite e-mail without resorting to the feeble deployment of double exclamation points? What a chump.
The Ontario Federation of Labour, LawIsCool and the rest of the "human rights" cheerleaders have got into bed with guys who think they should be allowed to dish it out but shouldn't have to take it - like the Jew-hater Mohamad Elmasry, who thinks it's fine for him to say it's legitimate to kill any Israeli civilian over 18 but it's a "hate crime" for meto quote a Norwegian imam. It's hardly surprising, given the shabbiness of their cause, that Ms Downey and LawIsCool have no sooner started the "debate" than they decide to end it. In so doing they demolish their own case.
Sorry, lads. You should have thought about this before you decided to use the sledgehammer of the HRCs on a bunch of nuts tougher to crack than your usual targets. You guys expected to be able to take down me and Ken Whyte and Ezra Levant without any pushback. It's not going to be like that this time.
PS All that said, I'm inclined to agree with this bit from the LawIsCool whiners:
But this issue seems to have also sunk to new depths. For example, this commentator states,
$500 says “LawIsCool” …are in fact a couple of homosexuals in Toronto
They say that as if it would be a bad thing.
Indeed. I'd rather be "a couple of homosexuals in Toronto" any day than a gaggle of Osgoode Hall law students in their present incoherent condition.
|
