Thursday, October 25, 2007

A Quick Lesson in Libel: Clownshoes Edition

But thanks for reading, Marty

In a recent post, Martin Rayner lobs some rather odd accusations toward the Nexus:

Not exactly drawing on “reliable sources” here (considering that the individual in question persistently vilifies and libels me without cause)

Well, my "reliability" as a source aside (the story is fully referenced, he can take issue with the reliability of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix if he wants to, but my hands are clean), Mr Rayner is apparently in need of a lesson in the meaning of libel.

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form...

...In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

Now, perhaps it may be true that I've been insulting or offensive toward the "esteemed" mr Rayner. But I would challenge him to produce proof of his so-called libel.

Near as any rational individual could tell (and we've certainly learned not to count mr Rayner among the ranks of the rational), this could come down to one of two issues: one passage in which I suggested that Martin Rayner may not be his true identity (although this was confirmed by way of this letter written to Keith Martin and reproduced on his blog). If this were not his real identity, then he would in effect be cavorting under the identiy of someone else, in effect stealing their identity. Although we know this to not be true now, at the time it was a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion, which is not libellous.

Other than that, perhaps mr Rayner's panties are in a knot over my suggestion that he needed to start a paypal account to accept donations on account of an inability to pay his bills. When one calls their paypal account the "Red Tory sustainability fund" (suggesting his use of a free service is not financially sustainable), one wonders what else mr Rayner would have expected. Once again, it's a valid statement of opinion, one that he himself has fuelled via his own indiscretions.

Whereas, on the other hand, mr Rayner's refusal to admit that whomever was posting on his blog under the alias "number four" was clearly not myself (which has been confirmed through photographic evidence, and can further be confirmed by examining the guest list of the Conservative party function I was attending at the time), does qualify as libelous, because he has, all along, refused to amend his position.

On that note, we also note that the learning curve among Rayner's various cohorts and groupies is rather steep. I've been informed that my name has been dropped at least one other time as the presumed identity of another dissenting poster on Rayner's blog.

In other words, they weren't smart enough to feel stupid the first time they did so and were proven wrong, so they certainly weren't smart enough to feel stupid when they did it again -- which ironically doesn't prevent them from looking stupid nonetheless.

Some people just never learn, no matter how many times you teach them.

As for villifying mr Rayner? Well, one of the two of us found the wherewithall to defend Canadian Cynic over his vicious attack on Wanda Watkins.

I don't need to villify mr Rayner. He does a good enough job of villifying himself.


  1. I don't need to villify mr Rayner. He does a good enough job of villifying himself

    you reckon? unlike yourself, red tory is a respected and thoughtful voice in the wilderness that is the canadian political blogosphere.

    he offers insight, you offer insults.

    the tone of your blog conjures images of a silly little twit prone to chronic masturbation. after seeing your image at red's site, i now realize that there is nothing little about you.

    lay off the snacks. they make you dull...among other things.

  2. Really? That's funny. Because the only people who seem to really have respect for Mr Rayner are his various cohorts and groupies, people not terribly unlike yourself.

    Say what you will about me. It isn't as if your opinion matters. I don't defend the indefensible merely because of political affiliation, unlike mr Rayner, and clearly unlike yourself.

  3. he offers insight, you offer insults.

    This statement implies that RT doesn't offer insults. Even he would disagree with that assessment.

  4. Yeah. Perhaps someone should ask Steve Janke, or Kate MacMillian, or Werner Patels (among others) if they've ever felt insulted by Mr Rayner.

    But to be honest, what amuses me most about RT and his little coterie of groupies is that they always resort to the exact same tactics they claim to despise, then tell themselves that they sure told us.

    Yep, Jeffy, you sure told me. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to my life of intellectual fulfilment peppered with the not-so-occasional awesome parties and sorority girls.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.