12.16.2011 06:54 PM


I can think of a few more legal actions to pursue.

Libel, for instance. Sue Kouvalis and those who hired him.

Libelling someone in their professional capacity: that’s libel per se.


  1. Matt says:

    Please do something… this guy has no conscience, ethics or decency. He deserves all that comes.

  2. Lawrence Stuart says:

    I can’t see a downside to legal action. Nail the fucker.

    • Kendall says:

      I can. It’s called losing and being forced to pay costs, not to mention the embarrassment of losing since the real argument seems to be they’ve acted unethically, not illegally.

      • Lawrence Stuart says:

        Against which risk you measure the benefits of keeping the story before the public eye, and giving Mr. Kouvalis et al. something to think about.

  3. Sandra MacKay says:

    Seriously, Warren, that guy is nuts. Have you seen his twitter account. He’s so paranoid!

  4. DL says:

    In the end this story is the best thing that ever happened to Irwin Cotler. He has had more positive publicity in the last two weeks than he has had in his entire political career and the Tories have probably mortally wounded themselves among the voters of Mount Royal.

  5. TheSilentObserver says:

    This unwashed, lobomotized lunk is a boil on Canada’s ass and needs to be sent packing to prison before his crypto-fascist, teabagger, ingsoc flavoured freakshow gains a beach head in non-basement dwelling Canada

    • TheSilentObserver says:

      Unusual telegraphic sentence; not easy to tell off

    • Philip says:

      Mr. Tulk wrote:
      “The firm of James Lock & Company was founded in 1676 and therefore can claim to have acquired a decent measure of experience in the provision of headgear. It now resides at number six St James’s Street, handily close to a number of London’s more civilized destinations. So a pleasant morning can be had, buying a couple of paintings at a Christie’s auction, being measured for some shirts in Jermyn street, selecting a hat at Lock’s and then toddling off to the Ritz for lunch.”

      Indeed. Well Said.

  6. Chris P says:

    Warren – Do what you need to do to slowly bleed his company campaign research to the ground.

  7. Jaded says:

    Don’t see it being successful as it didn’t diminish the ministers reputation. Some other avenue open?

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Since Andrew Scheer used them in his election campaign, there is the conflict-of-interest angle regarding Scheer’s ruling, but I don’t know how much meat would be in that sauce. I’d have to leave it to Mr, K. to analyze that one.

      • JenS says:

        So, say the speaker HAD ruled there was a breach. What good would it have done? The Con majority would have simply voted down moving forward on it.

        The conflict angle is interesting, but I think focusing on it simply detracts from the dishonesty that was behind the original action. That’s where the focus should be. Even if Scheer were found to have a conflict, it really wouldn’t result in much change. He’d receive a mild rebuke, and move on.

        I’m not sure it libeled Mr. Coulter, either. I don’t see much in libel law that would apply.

        Honestly, I think this is part of the problem: there’s so much focus on “how can we go after them?” that focus on the original action is lost. The angle with the most punch is simple: Cons acted dishonestly. Make that one stick. The rest just detracts from what needs to be the central focus.

        • Ken says:

          If the shoe was on the other foot, the Tories would never, ever, EVER stop thinking about ways of going after them.

          • JenS says:

            Jeeeeeeeepers, dude … that sorry old chestnut wouldn’t fly if it came out of my eight-year-old’s mouth. Beyond that, I think you may have missed the point, which is that it seems like there’s this flurry of hope that it’s best to go at this from all sorts of disjointed angles when really, it’s the original issue – the utter dishonesty – that should be the focus.

          • pomojen says:

            DItto to Jen. The dishonesty is the “ball” we aren’t keeping our eye on.

            In fact, searching for a way to make them pay via legal and rule-breaking kinds of means is OK…but I think there is a risk that we start playing the same messed-up game: the one where the spirit of what is done stops being the focus. The spirit of what was attempted with Mr. Cotler, and more importantly, with his constituency, is very very concerning. It’s dishonest and deceitful. If we lose sight of that, or lose the “sureness” of that by looking for the technical breach exclusively. we lose sight of the larger harm and start playing their game: the one where it only matters if we can find the rule that was or was not broken, no matter how right or wrong anything is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *