So Premier Wall has decided to sue Canadian Press for their headline of the story they ran on him and his participation in the now infamous video.I'm surprised they aren't suing the NDP, but perhaps we should just give that time, given this is the headline that has Wall upset.
"Tape with Sask premier and Tory MP has racist, sexist, homophobic comments: NDP."
Now I'm no expert on headline writing and guidelines, but it looks to me that they were printing a quote made by the NDP. If that's not the case, all it says is that the premier was on a tape that contained sexist, homophobic and racist comments.
Anyway, it strikes me as odd and I wonder if it's a trend that Harper has now begun in this country.
I wonder if Ezra will defend Canadian Press on this?
Update - Ooops, nevermind.
16 comments:
This is pretty different from the Harper case. I remember seeing the headline that mentioned Wall and until I read the rest of the article it definitely left the impression that his role in the whole thing was worse than it turned out to be. Stephen Harper is trying to use libel law to scare Liberals out of making debatable assertions about Harper. Wall is trying to correct a perception left by a headline that even the CP itself wouldn't be so foolish to explicitly state.
I doubt this will get anywhere. Right-wing nutsacks like Harper and Wall can file as many lawsuits as they like.
Granted I didn't read the whole article, but if the headline is as you show it, it clearly indicates that it was the NDP's position. Furthermore, it says the tape with Wall and a Tory MP has racist/sexist/homophobic comments on it, not that Wall himself necessarily made all of those comments.
Besides, what's his defense going to be? "Your honour, my comments on that tape were only racist, not homophobic or sexist!"
What a loser.
It's funny how Connies like to defame with impunity and have now started to get litigious and what they perceive to be defamatory...
As red_cancuck points outs they somehow want to negate the reality of videotape now... I'm sure that the dupes and their supporters will be ready to swallow the new reality...
kc...my feeble headline wasn't meant to infer that the cases are the same.
It's just a disturbing to see this type of reaction.
RC, thank you for at least affirming that my read of the headline was correct.
I thought of his defense and it all seems to be, well it was implied that...
You are right. What does he defend?
cherniak_wtf, ..It's funny how Connies like to defame with impunity and have now started to get litigious and what they perceive to be defamatory...
Hmmm. I refrained from stating the obvious (to me) and what has been stated about Dion what is an out and out lie.
Odd isn't it? The man who is apparently not a leader can take it on the chin and move on.
Colour me crazy, but I see no strength in hiding behind a lawyer/lawsuit.
You sometimes have to state the obvious with these socially maladjusted little prats... as depressing as that is...
I guess you clowns never said or did anything back in the day that would embarras you??
Of course just reading some of your comments here would be enough to demonstrate to most level-headed folks that you had some serious issues . . .
Why do lefties always gravitate to the lowest level when asked the tough questions that they can never answer??
Perhaps that is why Suzuki and Gore run like london bombers when asked to debate the things they just know!!!
I guess you clowns never said or did anything back in the day that would embarras you??
I'm sure many have. But I don't think we make it a pattern of being homophobic.
So how old was Tom at the time? Was he some college kid with too much beer?
Nope. He was a supposedly adult of some 40 years..
Of course just reading some of your comments here would be enough to demonstrate to most level-headed folks that you had some serious issues . . .
Care to elaborate? Quite easy to accuse, how about some substance to your arguments?
Why do lefties always gravitate to the lowest level when asked the tough questions that they can never answer??
What Questions big boy?
Funny that you should put it that way. I was wondering why the Stephan Harper party seems to attract cavemen and simpletons...
Perhaps that is why Suzuki and Gore run like london bombers when asked to debate the things they just know!!!
I haven't known Suzuki or Gore to run away from a debate. Seems that I recall Baird running away from Suziki...
Nevertheless, how does this fit in with the subject of Tom being a homophobe and Connies acting like spoiled children?
What a weiner. Sheesh, these aren't you father's conservatives anymore.
Should the headline of your post not read..
"Tearing a Page from Dion's Playbook."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.WBwblogolitics20080303182541/WBStory/WBwblogolitics
You lib-blogs are a trip.
Having read the whole article, it is pretty clear to me that the entire attempt of this little dust-up is to get out the message that Wall "WAS NOT IN THE ROOM WHEN THESE COMMENTS WERE MADE!!!!!"
In case you didn't get that from the premier's offices statements, I'm sure they'll repeat it for the next several days.
Then, when they feel the message has been sufficiently spread among the inattentive masses (as I'm sure they identify the voting public), they'll quietly withdraw the attempts at a lawsuit that wouldn't go anywhere anyway.
Their fear was not coming out dramatically would allow the idea to fester that he could EVER have been party to the kind of oozing superiority and arrogance (not to mention blatantly offensive) crap spewing from the characters on the tape at the party the premier attended.
Good luck with that.
Good call Danny. See the update.
Seems that the new strategy is to apologize...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080407.wwall_apology0407/BNStory/National/home
Indeed Cherniak_WTF.
I'm stunned frankly that the many in the media rely/buy the line, it was 16 years ago, apology accepted.
Where the hell were they living in 1991? We're not talking the 1800's here, we're not even speaking of the 1960's.
'I'm sorry I was a racist, I'm sorry I was a homophobe while everyone outside our party was actually working to point out that such behaviour was not only unacceptable, but a thing of the past'.
I for one am not buying the pap.
Are we capable of evolving? Of course, (Stockie excluded). Or are they more capable of modifying their comments to conform to what they call the oppressive Politically Correct current that runs through the country?
Rhetorical of course.
I for one am not buying the pap.
Neither am I.
If the comments had been about almost any other group, the reaction would have been different...
Post a Comment