Attention, Warren Kinsella: Lawyer Counsels Violence!

Washroom Nazi Hunter Warren Kinsella is outraged that Ezra Levant would dare "publish" a death threat against his buddy, Lucy Warman.

Note to Warren: the threat was made by an anonymous poster, and Ezra deleted it. If you're really concerned about lawyers calling for physical violence against others, you might check out this clip of... That's right! Your buddy, Lucy Warman!

Of course, Warren doesn't care about threats of violence, just so long as it's his buddies making them.

Poor Warren. He's had a rough time these last few months. I'll bet he wishes he was back in the kitchen with Lucy and the rest of the HRC gang, baking cookies.

HILARIOUS UPDATE: I have been banned from Dr. Dawg's site for being... An agent provocateur! Apparently he was not too pleased by my attempts to get him to clarify his potentially libelous comments implying that Ezra Levant knowingly approved a death threat. Anyway, I'm now an agent provocateur!

What can I say? I was just doing a Richard Warman impression. I thought he'd approve!

UPDATE UPDATE: A poster named Travis provides a neat summary of what happened over at Dr. Dawg's blog, which deserves to be re-posted here in full:

Cameron said:

"Chris, are you saying that condoning pieing is the same as condoning what any reasonable person would read as a a threat of a torture session followed by death? "

"Yes, let's be clear here, I don't think Ezra supports death threats against any one,"

So Ezra doesn't support death threats, he just condones them? That's a mighty fine hair to be splitting.

It would appear that several posters here let their dislike of Ezra Levant get the better of them and implied some rather nasty (and likely untrue) things about him. And when someone called them on it and provided a much simpler alternative interpretation (which Occam's Razor indicates we should accept), they retreated to a technical argument that no one disputes, tried to pretend they never said anything untoward and then banned the whistle blower.

Not your finest hour gentlemen.
Travis | 04.11.08 - 12:09 pm | #

No, indeed. Here's more:

Adam C, both positions made assumptions about Levant's motives. I fail to see how the assumption that Levant endorsed the comments is even remotely as reasonable as the assumption that it slipped through. In fact given that Levant removed the comment we can conclude that he does not endorse it.

Ti-Guy, interesting that you would assume I'm a conservative. It's also interesting that apparently object more to my "civility" more than my "passive-aggressiveness". I'd offer to call you names if that would make you feel better, but Dawg has already implied that he might ban me so I'll have to give that a pass.

MWW, does not the act of removing the post also speak for itself? Why don't you credit Levant for that in your analysis?

"Nobody has alleged anything here. They have merely observed what is true and can be proven."

You obviously haven't read the same comment stream I have. What can be proven is that the comment appeared on Levant's blog and was later removed.

If you want to argue that Levant was sloppy or lazy about policing his comments go ahead, there's a valid criticism there. If you want to argue that decorum indicates that he explain why he removed the comment, go to it. You won't get any objection from me.

In any case I don't see how Chris could force you to say anything just by posting comments. From my point of view he was checking to see if anyone had the balls to flat out say what they were oh so happy to imply about Levant. And the answer to that was a resounding no.

Exactly. Actually, if anything I was giving them the opportunity to back off a little and clarify their comments. It's telling that they banned me and refused to clarify anything.

A poster named Cameron keeps posting "infer vs. imply" or some such thing, as though it's okay for them to infer Ezra approved of a death threat, but not imply that he did. Of course, they did both, but I find the attempt at a distinction somehow amusing.

No, Mr. Warman, we didn't IMPLY you're responsible for the Cools post, we INFERRED that you were responsible for it. How would Lucy react? With (A) a defamation lawsuit, (B) a s. 13 complaint, (C) a pie to your face, or (D) all of the above?

"We go and kill everybody."

Some welcome news for serial idiot and Kinsella sycophant Vlad Glebov; his beloved gang of 18 terrorists is getting their day in court after all.

He came by a while ago to complain that

"...those Toronto 18 that you speak off, since 2006 there still hasn't been a trial. About half of them have been released on bail, which means some of them aren't as dangerous to the public as people think. I assume you believe in "innocent before proven guilty"rule. I'd wait before they are convicted before you quote their alleged plot.

You can find out more info here:
http://toronto18.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=1

Actually, if you follow his link, you find that 4 out of 18 are out on "unusually strict" bail conditions. But that's okay, basic math isn't one of Vlad's strengths.

Anyway, here's what the shockingly Islamophobic Toronto Star had to report on the case today:

The "shocking and sensational" inner workings of an alleged homegrown terror cell were unveiled yesterday in a Brampton court – and included the plotting of an attack "much greater" in scale than the London 2005 bombings that killed 52 people.

In a document made public for the first time, the Crown painted a broad picture of the expected evidence in the trial of a youth who pleaded not guilty to belonging to a terrorist group. The trial opened yesterday.

According to the allegations, the so-called Toronto 18 were attempting to secure a safe house to store weapons and practise military drills, and embarking on a mission to destroy the West – one they should be willing to die for.

Details of the alleged plot, which also included storming Parliament Hill and beheading politicians, emerged in a factum filed by the Crown that described the case against the accused as "shocking and sensational."

The document contains transcripts of wiretaps and videotapes that include one conversation in which one of the accused speaks of the group's ambitions.

"They're probably expecting what happened in London or something," he said. "... Some bombing in a subway kills 10 people and everybody gets deported. We're not doing that. ... So our thing it's, it's much, much greater on a scale ... you do it once and you make sure they can never recover again." ...

Here's a transcript of their planning:

Person 3: "What happens, what happens at the Parliament?"

Person 1: "We go and kill everybody."

No, Vlad, they're not dangerous at all. Nothing to see here. Multicultural peace and harmony.

UPDATE: Hello again Warren. I didn't realize s. 1 of the Charter says freedom of speech is an American concept that should be accorded no value in Canada. I'm just not as learned as you, I suppose!

Who Said What?

A fun game for Warren to play while he's lurking around my site:



UPDATE: Welcome to everyone from SDA and thanks for the link Kate, it's much appreciated. I usually get 100 hits per month, not per hour.

UPDATE 2: I've fixed up the game so it's a little easier to read. The original file is here.

"Anti-Racist" Defends Pro-Terror Anti-Semite

OK, normally I wouldn't waste my time on a bunch of Kinsella* sycophants, but since he has linked to them so enthusiastically, and since one is hilariously stupid, here it goes.

• First, the fool published a list of the Canadian Islamic Congress's complaints against Mark Steyn (here), which misquoted and mischaracterized Steyn's words. The (mis)quoted statement comparing Muslim population growth to the spread of mosquitoes was, of course, not Steyn's but that of a European imam. Most of the other quotes were from Steyn's plot summary of a book by Robert Ferrigno. Of course, the CIC intended all of this to make Steyn look like a racist lunatic. And Vlad Glebov, "Commerce and Finance Specialist," swallowed it whole. Don't bother asking for an apology.



• Next, Vlad came by my blog to further make a fool of himself. Confronted with a recent CBC poll which showed that 12% (+/- 4.4% 19 times out of 20, or somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 out of 700,000) of Canadian Muslims think that a terrorist attack that included beheading the prime minister and blowing up the Parliament building would be "justified," he expounded his wisdom on polling thusly: "thats not thousands, thats about 35 people out of that survey of 500..." Further: "The typical sample size used in basic political polls that are reported on CNN are at least 1000 people... and even thats considered to be too low by analysts." When confronted with a few basic concepts from Statistics 101, he kept digging: "...CNN polls are probably done at 99% confidence and that requires about 900-1000 sample size." Of course, that's nonsense. Anyway, if you're thinking of hiring a "Commerce and Finance Specialist" from UTM in the near future, beware!



• Next, Vlad returned to my site not to respond to me, but to post a link to his new post, and hey, it looks like he actually got the quotes himself this time! Anyhow, as I explain here, I responded on his site. He promptly deleted three of my links (to pages where he had previously made a fool of himself), and a question I asked about Tarek Fatah. I pointed this out, and he responded by blaming Wordpress, and accusing me of spreading conspiracy theories about him. If, uh, anyone cares, he posted a screenshot showing that Wordpress gave him a choice to "Approve" or "Edit" my post. He edited it. Just a warning for anyone thinking of posting there. Someone equally clueless responded with this: "HA HA HA! I cannot believe Chris. You think you can seriously win any argument against Vlad? ... Right now, defending Mark Steyn, is putting one self in the same league as him, possibly being identified as a “racist” also."



• So, in response, I asked how they can justify putting themselves in "the same league" with Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the CIC, who is famous for saying that all Israeli adults are legitimate targets for suicide bombers. How do you think this "Say No To Hate" activist/Kinsella sycophant responded? Why, by defending Elmasry, and attacking a Jew!

UPDATE: Here's my latest post, which he doesn't seem too keen to publish (here), just in case he gets the urge to hit "Edit" again:

(1) I did not "make up crazy conspiracy theories." I wrote that you edited my post above (cutting out both links and text). You did. Do you deny doing this?

(2) I do not "blindly support" Mark Steyn. But I don't blindly go along with the hysterical criticism of him either -- much of which, by the way, is based on misquotes or mischaracterizations of what he has written. If the case against Steyn was so obvious, why did the CIC have to falsely attribute the misquitoes quote to him, and mischaracterize his plot summary of a novel as Steyn's own views/predictions? I await your apology for blindly following along and reprinting the same libel on your site.

(3) I did quote the transcript properly. I gave you what Elmasry actually said, not the spin that others added afterwards. In any case, since he clearly stated above in the transcript that all Israelis over 18 are in the army, "Yes [if they are part of the army]" means "Yes."

(4) I do not support B'nai Brith or Adam Aptowitzer in any way, and never have. The point here is that you should think twice before relying on CIC documents to smear Mark Steyn, or anyone else. That is, if you were really interested in "speaking out against hate" etc., instead of just Mark Steyn & Co.

* Washroom Nazi Hunter

UPDATE 2: Hmm... A reader from Sanibel, Florida? Hello Warren!

Client #9

Hahaha

Cherniak has competition!

"Please, link to me, making a complete fool of myself... I want the traffic!"

At least he's honest about it!

UPDATE: No surprise, but Vlad the Libeller (right) will delete your post if it's even remotely critical. Just a warning.

FYI, here's my post from this page, which disappeared today:

OK, let me return the favour:
http://chrisvanoostveen.blogspot.com/2008/02/warren-kinsella-makes-smearniak-look.html.

Of course, I understand it's easier for you to throw up more quotes, rather than to actually respond to the points I raised here.

Hint: you might be able to make a better argument (and avoid misquoting and mischaracterizing Steyn's work) if you actually bothered to read his book (still waiting for your apology...).

FYI, Steyn, like Daniel Pipes (and Tarek Fatah -- is he an Islamophobe too?), and many others, makes clear distinctions between moderate Muslims and Muslims like Krekar. No one, Steyn included, has argued that all Muslims are terrorists, plotting to attack us. That's a pretty silly distortion of Steyn's views.

Oh well. At least you attributed the mosquitoes quote to the right person this time!

UPDATE UPDATE: "Actually Chris, your comment was picked up as spam and never posted..." Right...

Once I reposted the comment here, it suddenly appeared on his site -- first with the links intact, and then with the embarrassing ones deleted. Here's his version of my post (at the moment):

OK, let me return the favour:

Of course, I understand it’s easier for you to throw up more quotes, rather than to actually respond to the points I raised

Hint: you might be able to make a better argument and avoid misquoting and mischaracterizing Steyn’s work if you actually bothered to read his book (still waiting for your apology…).

FYI, Steyn, like Daniel Pipes http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=162281 Tarek Fatah, and many others, makes clear distinctions between moderate Muslims and Muslims like Krekar. No one, Steyn included, has argued that all Muslims are terrorists, plotting to attack us. That’s a pretty silly distortion of Steyn’s views.

Oh well. At least you attributed the mosquitoes quote to the right person this time!

In case you haven't noticed, the links to the embarrassing exchange here are mysteriously gone, as is that inconvenient question about Tarek Fatah.

"Moderation" indeed!

Warren Kinsella makes Smearniak look good

Kinsella has just claimed that Mark Steyn said Muslims "breed like mosquitoes" (among other things).

Obviously, he has learned nothing from Jim Henley, who made the same claim a few months ago. Of course, the words are not Steyn's, but those of a prominent Scandinavian imam.

We didn't have to wait long for Henley's apology. How long will we have to wait for Kinsella's?

(P.S. Harper's magazine included the caveat that these words have been "attributed" to Steyn. Of course, if they have been falsely attributed to Steyn, it says more about the ones doing the attributing that it does about Steyn. In any case, Kinsella didn't include caveats. Time for a libel suit, maybe?)

UPDATE: Others have weighed in, here and here. Meanwhile, this guy is asking the Canadian Islamic Congress for help in proving Steyn's racism, apparently unconcerned that it is led by a man who thinks all Israeli adults are legitimate targets for suicide bombers.

Jason Cherniak makes Dan Rather look good

Yet more evidence that Jason Cherniak is a fool.

Here's Jason's "evidence" against a Conservative staffer...And here's what a real facebook post looks like, from the group Dion for PM:Let's count the differences.

• As Mike Brock notes, the given name and surname are in different colours in Jason's "evidence."


• As he also notes, 19:32am isn't a real time, like, say, 5:07pm, which is a real time.


• In the real post, above, there's a small gap between the profile picture and the name & date. In Jason's evidence, there is none.


• In the real post, the name, date/time, and post are all roughly the same font size, whereas in Jason's evidence the date/time is larger.


• In Jason's post, it looks like the text goes across the full screen...

His explanation of the differences?

Marcus sent me a PDF of his word document. I assumed it was a screenshot and used Microsoft photo editor to turn the PDF into a jpg (by copying and pasting a screen shot) before uploading to Blogger. So that's why the "image" was off. It was actually a cut and paste in Word.

So, somehow, this turned the surname black, but not the given name, not to mention all the other changes I listed above.

Does Jason actually expect anyone to believe this?

Take me to your Kangaroo Court

A note to Boys Washroom Nazi Hunter Warren Kinsella (pictured, right), or his buddy, Richard Warman, advocate of the human right of thugs to throw pies at people.

Your political thuggery, in the form of endless and empty legal threats, and support for physical attacks against those you deem unworthy of the right to speak, is decidedly Naziesque in character.

That's all.

Some children die

Here's a story you won't see on Little Mosque on the Prairie:

TORONTO -- A Mississauga, Ont., cab driver has been charged with the murder of his 16-year-old daughter, who was attacked in the family home after clashing with her strict Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic head scarf for women.

I'm posting not because this is surprising from the Religion of Peace, but because this happened not far from where I live, and next to Applewood Plaza, where I often shop for groceries (and beer, and other heathen things).

Also, I'd like to point out some comments from an ESL teacher named Michelle over at Jim Henley's site on this crime:

Parents punish their children. For religious and other reasons. Some children die. Others survive and make peace with their parents.

Really, it's no big deal! Some parents strangle their kids to death for not wearing the proper religious clothes. Some kids wear the clothes, and survive. Nothing to see here.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Jason Cherniak in the Western Standard

The Western Standard, in their May 7 edition, makes the following comment on Cherniak:

On April 3, Liberal blogger Jason Cherniak, an official with Dion’s leadership campaign, produced an Internet TV ad taking a quote from Stephen Harper out of context in an attempt to portray the prime minister as if he enjoyed the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan. (It was too much even for Liberal supporters and he took it down.)

I pointed this out in a post to his site, and now this, and the Western Standard is quoted in his "Shameless Advertising" section:

"Jason Cherniak...produced an Internet TV ad" - Western Standard

Note that he doesn't take issue or dispute the facts of the Western Standard story. All he can do is poke fun at the "Internet TV ad" bit (a Google search for "liberal internet tv" turns up 3.7 million hits, but whatever).

And despite the fact that the Western Standard piece exposes him as a ridiculous hack, he can't resist "quoting" them on his site to boost his own ego. Pathetic.

Another Liblogger Goes to Jail

First Shoshana Berman attacks her own child with scissors, and now Jim Curran (formerly the Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls) is charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000.

How many other criminals are on Jason Cherniak's blogroll?