07.31.2013 07:50 AM

The secret apology

Someone has lost a legal case to me.  They have had to issue an apology.  They are trying to keep the fact of that secret.

It’s a rather existential bit of business, you might say.  Stay tuned.


  1. Joe Harrington says:

    Was it Stephen Harper?

  2. Jeff says:

    lol Dan F. The longest running series in TV history: People Who Libelled Warren Kinsella, Got Sued, and Lost. Buy the full season twenty DVD set today!

  3. bobfrombob says:

    If an apology happens in secret, did it ever really happen?

  4. deb s says:

    I hope it was the nazi creep…lol

  5. Derek Pearce says:

    This is getting to be like you’re George Bluth and these winning cases are your J. Walter Weatherman:

    “And THAT’S why you don’t libel Warren Kinsella!” Love it.

    *also, your continued success with these cases does convince me further that the crack vid sure is out there somewhere, or Hizoner would be getting some cash and “sorry”s from the Star and Gawker… and he has not lifted a finger to ask for such recompense…

  6. smelter rat says:


  7. Jim Beal says:

    Somebody got A-bombed by Daisy?

  8. Ken Talmont says:

    While we laugh at the common American misconception that Canadians live perpetually in a dark, frozen wasteland, an oppressive libel chill blankets the land as thickly as any January blizzard. While Liberals drone on that we are all “children of the charter,” the reality is that Canadians really don’t have freedom of the press and by extension Canadians really don’t have freedom of thought – we remain collectively lobotomized. If the news and opinions the people receive are so sanitized as to be a gross distortions of reality, if “news” in fact resemble something more akin to Pravda, is it any wonder the powers-that-be are more draconian than liberal.

    Dan Burnett has stated:”our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world…It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism. In Law of Defamation in Canada, Professor Brown notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as “artificial and archaic” and characterized by “absurdities”, “irrationality”, and “minute and barren distinctions.” While social values and legal concepts have evolved dramatically of the past 200 years, the common law of libel in Canada remains startlingly unchanged.”

    The libel laws in Canada and the United Kingdom are so favorable to plaintiffs, people travel from all over the world to engage in so-called “libel tourism.” Citizens from such bastions of liberal democracy and human rights like Saudi Arabia come to Toronto and London to settle their hurt feelings in our courts.

    As is always the case, there is a group who is perfectly happy with the status quo. In fact, certain journalists and pundits (who are better left unnamed – it certainly would be ironic to be sued for libel for suggesting that certain persons were over zealous in their pursuit of libelers) have fattened their purses while simultaneously striking fear into the hearts of those that might utter the truth about things once in a while. Psychosocially, we really haven’t progressed far beyond the days of John the Baptist – the unfortunate man who had his head lopped off for critiquing the morals of King Herod.

    Scientists have done sensory-deprivation experiments; subjects are placed in sound and light proof chambers and float suspended in a saline solution to minimize the sense of touch. The scientists discover that after a time, subjects would start to hallucinate and completely break from reality, similar to an lsd trip or a schizophrenic in the grip of their own personal nightmare. Less dramatically, but more harmfully, there is general consensus that infants and children who do not receive healthy stimulation do not develop to anywhere near their full potential.

    Our current climate of crony communications, that is, media so beholden to the hand the feeds it combined with these draconian libel laws has created a political landscape where the population simply won’t receive an adequate level of information to develop as free citizens who can hold the powers-that-be in check. The daily ration of actual political discourse is now so meagre, now just the occasional ray of light disturbing our hallucinatory world of something akin to professional wrestling.

    Indeed, it’s a total absurdity to talk about a liberal parties or liberal movements in a country where free speech has been brought to heel through libel chill and crony communications. If the woman or man of letters has been silenced through fear of economic ruin, then only those who are truly broke, down and out, will venture to write anything of substance – which of course will be difficult because they are broke and down and out. All that remains is pre-approved talking points, “conversations” composed of carefully screened participants, journalists and pundits whose texts have been tripled screed by editors and legal teams, or the alternative – eerie silence faintly punctuated with “problem, what problem?” or “yes, Dear Leader, yes!”

    • VC says:

      How is freedom of thought an extension of freedom of the press? I don’t rely on the media to form my thoughts because I am capable of independent reasoning: I can be, and I am, critical of what I read. I am not a passive actor. For example, I read what you printed and I can critically reject almost every claim you assert (including the flowery bouquet of prose that you used to package your nonsense). It’s not hard. You should try it too, beginning with the uncritical analysis of Dan Burnett and Prof. Brown that you proffer here.

  9. Houland Wolfe says:

    WK, I want to apologize in advance for any offensive remarks I make about you, here or anywhere else. This is heart-felt, trust me.

  10. doug marsh says:

    Someone can lose a case and then keep the judgment a secret ?

    I’m not a lawyer like you Warren but, barring exceptional circumstances vetted by a judge, that should be illegal.

    • Ty says:

      That’s not the issue. It’s not the judgment being hidden, it’s that they’re trying to make an apology without really doing so.

  11. Pipes says:

    Kicking ass and taking names. That’s what I D I G about you man!

  12. boopsie says:

    1. Just let me say that your site is the first go-to when I am out of country…a capsule version of what is going on.
    2 .I don’t have to always agree with you…and that is healthy, yes?
    3. You’re funny
    4. I’m a tad older than you, as are many of your correspondents

    We will prevail. It took New Zealand 30 years to get rid of the senate, but you can go to Wellington and see for yourself
    the lovely small Red Chamber, empty but for the Throne, now used for social functions.

    Meanwhile go to the Yukon and turn off all devices ..you’ll like it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.