When Kinsella Attacks

12:12 pm, 10/15/04

When Kinsella Attacks
Warren Kinsella is a Quebecois lawyer in Toronto and former Chretien aid. He's also a man with a blog, who describes himself as a "raconteur" and "bon vivant", and he's all ticked off. He's mad because there are people on the internet who don't like him much. (Imagine that.) So, he decided to threaten them with legal action, strongarming them into removing their commentary. Shamrocks!:

I am done beefing with Warren Kinsella. I have taken down the posting where I 'respond' to his legal notice. He said something I didn't like and it started from there and now it is taking on a life of its own on other sites.
But I'm done.
From now on, I'll keep his name out of my mouth and he can keep it the same.

Babbling Brooks:

Upon threat of legal action from the wise, courageous, and apparently unchallengeable Warren Kinsella, I have pulled my previous post. I'm not a lawyer, like Warren Kinsella, LL.B. I don't know if what I wrote meets the legal definition of defamation, and I can't afford to find out, so I've deleted the post.
But you know what? My hundred readers or so don't need my incoherent babblings to tell them what sort of a person Kinsella is. His actions speak far louder than my words.
Consider me bullied, Warren. For now.

Ianism.com:

Mr. Kinsella seems to have a different interpretation of what I wrote, in his special email to me. It seemed to sail right over his head. And with that, I will be seeking legal advice.

I ain't rich, but I'll go and get one of those free "half hour" consultation things. I'm just a little guy that won't be bullied. If my legal advice suggests I was a bad boy that has broken laws, I'll fix it up. If my legal advice suggests otherwise, I'll post my special email.

What I wrote may have been mean. But I don't believe it was what is being claimed it is. But I'm not a lawyer.

Warren's sudden agonizing panic over defamation on the internet doesn't really seem to jibe with his past behavior: As noted here and also here, his blog features many lovely sentiments. For example:

"Boy is that Matt Drudge guy ever an asshole. What a moron."

"The Internet is full of red-necked, mouth-breathing rightist poltroons - as is talk radio, and a lot of newspaper editorial pages."

"You could call it The Carolyn Parrish Truism. You are what you bleat."

"No, actually, it's Carolyn Parrish who is the idiot. Kick her out of the Liberal caucus NOW."

"I DID NOT DIRECT ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING, EVER. AND I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A PROGRAM THAT DID NOT EXIST. SO GO JUMP IN A LAKE. Christ, I despise Ottawa."

His site also features him wearing one of these monstrosities.

So, wow. Whatever these other guys said about him must've been truly beyond the pale to spur him to legal threats, right? Allegations of gay prostitution? Child molestation? Cannibalism? Was Kinsella meant to be one of the 9/11 hijackers? Who here would be surprised if, tied up with Chretien, he has a voucher for 10,000,000 barrels of Iraqi oil with Saddam Hussein's signature on it framed in his office? No, it was none of those things.

It was about military spending. Kinsella had posted about the very sad death of Lt. Saunders, and Damian couldn't take the hypocrisy of W.K. being all mawkish about that when he had been the hatchet-man for a government that had cut our army, navy, and air force down to the bone. Said that people like him were part of the problem.

So Kinsella threatened to sue.

Hmmm, is that right? Kinsella was, as he describes himself, "a special assistant to the Right Honourable Jean Chretien, and chief of staff in a pile of federal ministries". What could possibly be more appropriate for commentary than the record of federal officials when their federal policy is such a clear failure? (Using "honorable" and Chretien in the same sentence makes me feel creepy inside, but since it's the metric spelling, I can handle it.)

By the way, Warren, if you want to come on down and hash this out in the Illinois courts, bring it on. We have, like, "rights", and stuff.