Daisy Group

“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

It’s affecting me more than I thought it would. I predicted it, I wrote about it, I analyzed it. But it has hit me – that this big, bad thing is happening, and no one seems to give a damn.

(Oh, and if you want to post a comment about how Facebook is going to fill the void, and break the next Watergate, don’t bother. Go back to watching your panda bear videos and leave me to my misery.)



It is older than Stonehenge. Any guesses what it is?



…but they’re not your friend, either, alleged Jian Ghomeshi victims.  Occasionally giving in to chase producers is no sin.  But when a criminal probe is underway, or about to be? Zip your lip, and resist every microphone pointed in your direction.  At that point, speaking up only helps out the guy you say is a bad guy.

Alan Cross, in case you didn’t know, is an internationally known broadcaster, interviewer, writer, consultant, blogger and speaker. In his 30-plus years in the music business, Alan has interviewed the biggest names in rock, from David Bowie and U2 to Pearl Jam and the Foo Fighters. He’s also known as a musicologist and documentarian through programs like The Ongoing History of New Music.

And, apparently, he likes SFH’s new tune! Quote:

“God bless the guys in SFH (short for “Shit from Hell”), “Canada’a best-loved geriatric punk combo,” with a subtle commentary on the leading Republic presidential candidate. Learn more about this East Toronto band here.

We’re his song of the day! Check it out!

Have you ever worked on a trial, from start to finish? I have.  When I did so, I was always amazed about how much information – how much detail – I would miss by simply stepping out of the courtroom to go to the bathroom.

Have you ever been a court reporter, and tried to cover a trial? I have.  I was the courts guy for the Ottawa Citizen, and I was always terrified about how much information – how much evidence – I would miss by simply doing my job, flitting from one courtroom to the next, trying to cobble together a good story without errors.

Thus, the Ghomeshi trial (or the Bosma trial, or any other trial that attracts a lot of media attention): with the exception of a few dozen other people, who are there every day, none of us – none of us – are there to observe the proceedings, to hear and see the evidence.

This is important, because – since these two trials kicked off this week – I have seen too many otherwise-sensible folks lose their minds on social media, and appoint themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner.  For reasons I do not fully comprehend, they think they have superior insight into the accused, the witnesses, the evidence and the law – simply by peering periodically at a tiny screen, filled as it is with 140 characters.

They don’t.  They can’t.  Facebook – and Twitter in particular – facilitate a sort-of mob mentality online, one in which people with no understanding whatsoever of the issues/evidence/law decide whether someone is guilty/culpable or not. It’s like The Ox Bow Incident, except with smartphones (watch that movie – it’s why I went to law school).

Here’s a cautionary report from the U.K.:

The rise of social media has meant that conversations about criminal cases, once had down the pub or over the garden fence, are now instantly published online – and can be shared with thousands, BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman says.

Instant publication on the internet can go viral at an astonishing rate but so too can the message that the criminal and civil law applies to it as much as to a considered newspaper article. Education on the law of contempt is likely to spread very rapidly online.

But Facebook and Twitter are publications subject to the same laws that in practice used to apply only to the mainstream media. Anyone commenting about a case or defendant in a way that could prejudice a trial could be prosecuted for contempt and imprisoned.

There, the British Attorney General has starting publishing advisories to the general public – advisories that previously only went to accredited media – about how to avoid being jailed for contempt for something someone posted online about a trial.

The same sort of conclusions are being reached in Canada, particularly after the notorious “Killer Colonel” case:

The usually media-shy lawyer [Michael Edelson], whose Ottawa firm has represented many high-profile clients, said he’s gone public with his views because the issue is too important to ignore.

Edelson said he’d like to see a forum where senior journalists, judges and lawyers could get together and “throw around ideas” about whether social media tools should be controlled inside the courtroom.

The context of what’s being heard in court is often lost in Twitter posts, which are limited to 140 characters each, he said.

“The public interest is not served by where they don’t properly understand court proceedings and they don’t understand why a certain verdict or certain sentence emanates from the court, because they haven’t been given enough information to make a decision for themselves,” Edelson said.

“And certainly, getting 140 characters doesn’t assist you in making a decision whether or not the judge got it right or lawyers were making silly submissions or whatever the case may be.”

Which brings us to today, and to the shredding of the first complainant in the Ghomeshi trial. There can be no doubt – as seen here and here and here and here – that she has handed the prosecution a devastating setback, one that clearly creates lots of questions about the alleged offence as it relates to her. She did that – not the defendant’s (very capable) lawyer.

Those of you who are getting upset reading Twitter accounts of the trial of the former CBC luminary – and expressing your feelings online – need to please take a step back, and recall those hoary old concepts you’d like to apply to you, should you ever have the misfortune to get in big trouble – you know, innocent before proven guilty, vigorous defence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. (And please don’t lump me in with the misogynistic scum who are delighting in how the Ghomeshi trial has gone so far. Personally, I usually favour regarding sexual assault as a capital offence. I’m not exaggerating, either.)

Months ago, a lawyer who knew more about Jian Ghomeshi’s trial told me he was likely going to walk. “The charges were laid in an environment of total media and social media hysteria,” this lawyer said. “The evidence just isn’t there.”

This week, the evidence certainly didn’t seem to be there in R. v. Ghomeshi.

But then again, I haven’t been in that Toronto courtroom every single day. So I don’t know.

Do you?

Read this. Read David Olive’s brutal indictment of Paul Godfrey and the guild of vampires who have destroyed Canadian print journalism.

No other democratic nation would have permitted what Godfrey and his cabal were licenced to do by the Harper government. No other nation’s regulatory authorities would have looked the other way, as a murder of New York hedge funds eviscerated a key facet of our democracy.  

Under the previous government, Canada did. 

At this point, only the Globe’s Crawley and the Star’s Honderich have the experience and the means to pick up the pieces of Postmedia, and resuscitate it. Only those two can ensure the viability of daily print journalism in Canada. 

Pray they do. Because you’ll be unhappy if they don’t.