- There should be a Public Inquiry into Harper bringing the Libel suit against the Liberal Party
The Harper libel lawsuit is framed as a private matter as far as the courts are concerned. However, it is very serious matter as far as the people of Canada are concerned. Although the court has dismissed the case it is far too important politically for the people of Canada to dismiss. The suggestions seem to be that Harper brought this case for political reasons. My reading of this article is that Prof. Magnet suggests that it may be the case that it was brought to “push the problem down the line in time”. Down the line in time might be “after the next election”, which when reviewing the chronology of the case makes one wonder.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
posted by wlloydm at
9:17 AM
<< Home