917 replies to this topic

[Shady]

Wrong. They never laid any charges.

I never said any charges were laid. The only thing that was laid was probably Layton himself!

I kid, I kid.

Edited by Shady, 30 April 2011 - 07:11 PM.

[Mr.Canada]

I never said any charges were laid.

Layton was found naked in a suspected bawdy house. I'm going to call around to some local reg'd massage clinics around here and see if they allow people to get a massage completely naked. I'll get tot the bottom of this once and for all. I did it for Pride I can do it for this too. I will do it for Canada!...and for Franco, the greatest leader of the last 100 years.

[Mr.Canada]

DP

Edited by Mr.Canada, 30 April 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[CANADIEN]

Layton was found naked in a suspected bawdy house. I'm going to call around to some local reg'd massage clinics around here and see if they allow people to get a massage completely naked. I'll get tot the bottom of this once and for all. I did it for Pride I can do it for this too. I will do it for Canada!...and for Franco, the greatest leader of the last 100 years.

So, should we expect more movies like the one you produced where we can see all those flying bodily fluids? Wait a minute... nobody has seen that movie.

[Mr.Canada]

So, should we expect more movies like the one you produced where we can see all those flying bodily fluids? Wait a minute... nobody has seen that movie.

I actually am curious to see if it's a widespread phenomena or localized to Chinatown massage parlors. We'll see.

[jbg]

I really hope Ezra Levant can be sued for something:

http://twitter.com/#!/ezralevant

Layton was a public figure on January 9, 1996. In the U.S. Levant would thus be immune from suit. Now, I've met Levant and Steyn together and they are both pompous asses, but entitled to their opinions.

[Smallc]

Layton was a public figure on January 9, 1996. In the U.S. Levant would thus be immune from suit. Now, I've met Levant and Steyn together and they are both pompous asses, but entitled to their opinions.

What he's doing goes far beyond opinion...and this isn't the US.

[Liberator.]

So, should we expect more movies like the one you produced where we can see all those flying bodily fluids? Wait a minute... nobody has seen that movie.

iT'S COMIN'.,IT'S Comin'

My link

[American Woman]

I didn't know about the possible special treatment from the Police that Layton may have received as well. I guess Layton doesn't mind the rich and priviledged getting a pass that Joe Public would never receive.

Actually, if you were to read what was said, you'd know it was just the opposite (as I've stated more than once already).


The police had to decide what to do with the controversial councillor.

"To have arrested him and charged him would have served our egos a lot more. Layton was a thorn in the side of the police, siding with the anti-poverty movement in '96 or '97 ... Jack was anti-police," the ex-cop said.

"We looked at it and thought do we take advantage of this, or do we look at this like (he's) any other person, put it away and we hope this thing dies a slow death." link

[Evening Star]

Thanks, AW. I was too fatigued to try to explain that (again) myself.

[CANADIEN]

What he's doing goes far beyond opinion...and this isn't the US.

The celebrity of the victm should not be an excuse for libel.

Edited by CANADIEN, 30 April 2011 - 09:16 PM.

[kimmy]

I don't consider a twitter post "putting something on the public record," which was my point. If the columnist wants to write about it in their media source, then it becomes "on the record" and there's an accountability standard/requirement that goes along with it. There is no accountability requirement, no standards assigned to a twitter post.

His name, and therefore his reputation, are attached to it. For somebody (like a politician, a celebrity, or in this case an author and journalist) whose reputation is vital to his livelihood, that's accountability enough. And as far as Canadian law is concerned, statements made on internet websites are as actionable as statements made on TV or in print.

There is a considerable number of politicians, celebrities, and athletes who have caused lasting harm to their reputations and even careers with controversial or poorly-thought-out statements in a variety of media, including Twitter. "It doesn't count, because I just said it on Twitter" never worked as an excuse. If you said it, you said it.

Consider, for example, former NDP candidate Malcolm Azania, who was haunted by what some said were anti-Jewish remarks that he wrote in UseNet postings back before most people had internet or even knew what it was.

Twitter is public record. Even UseNet posts from 20 years ago are public record. If you said it, you said it. Nobody accepts "well, it was just the internet so it doesn't count".



Do you think Jonathan Kay is lying? If not, why does it matter where he said it? If you do believe he's lying... why would it be any more believable if he wrote it in the newspaper?



-k

[TimG]

Here are some answers to questions people have been asking:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/30/18087896.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dbcbf1cb69d2e0e,1

The palour stopped operating after the raids (not something you expect from a legit place):

The massage parlour in the city's Chinatown neighbourhood, which ceased operations down shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges.

Seems to be that Jack would have to be awfly naive to not know what was going on.

[TimG]

The sun still didn't get it legally but they don't care.

The leak of the AG report on the G8 conference was illegal. I don't recall you getting upset about that illegality.

[American Woman]

Here are some answers to questions people have been asking:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/30/18087896.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dbcbf1cb69d2e0e,1

The palour stopped operating after the raids (not something you expect from a legit place):

Seems to be that Jack would have to be awfly naive to not know what was going on.

From your article:

Despite the Velvet Touch being a "pretty active illicit" operation, no one at Toronto City Hall received any complaints about it, Mammoliti said.

"I've asked recently if anyone at City Hall had complained in 1996 and there were no complaints that came out of councillors, but police had their eye on it, and at the end of the day, shut it down," Mammoliti said.

Whether the place was legitimate or not isn't the issue; it's whether or not Layton knew about it and/or if he was there for something other than a massage. The fact that it ceased operation has nothing to do with that. He's not guilty by association, and that's the point. The idea that no one went there for a massage, that everyone who went there was going for sex purposes, has not been established. At all. People have run off with this story with pure speculation, drawing conclusions, making judgments, while the story is only that Layton went there for a massage, the place was under watch by the police, he says he didn't know anything illicit was going on, your article confirms that there were no complaints out of city hall, no complaints came out of councillors, yet he has been judged and hung.