Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Wayne Crookes Sues the Net
newtley writes "Wayne Crookes, the Green Party of Canada's ex-financier, is in effect trying to sue the Internet. He's going after the Wikipedia, Google, and openpolitics.ca (run up by federal Green Party activist Michael Pilling) claiming he's suffered, 'an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress' over postings. Some 15 others may also have been targeted. "Mr. Crookes seems to be 'trying to unwrite history,' Pilling says. 'He was a central figure in the growth of the Green Party. His actions were highly controversial and if we have freedom of speech in this country, people should be allowed to talk about them.'" Newtley adds in a posting submitted 121 minutes later: "Literally 15 minutes after I posted [the foregoing], there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a lawsuit launched by Wayne Crookes..."
Nominative determinism?
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
The submitter of this post is in a position of conflict of interest and appears to be using SlashDot as a means to denigrate the individual behind the lawsuit. As it is clear from newtley's post, newtley himself is highly been involved in whatever shenanigans that are going on here. It is unfortunate and dishonest that newtley is using this forum as a platform to smear his opponent. Just from newtley's egregious behavior here, I can imagine that aspects of this case have more merit that he is portraying.
247 lawsuits filed against a Mr. Anonymous Coward for postings causing "immense amounts of frustration and emotional distress".
So tahts why slashdot was down earlier today, they were erasing all the evidence.
"oops, harddrive crash... nothing to see here judge"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Things like this help us remember why we have the right to free speech. It's because of people trying to remove our right to speak out against them, just like is happening here.
:-)
It's sometimes difficult for young'uns to remember that the internet, in it's populer worldwide usage form at least, is still very young. A great many people, organisations and countries were caught off guard by the freedom it gave for comment, and are still trying to remove that freedom.
Their efforts are going to fail, but not because of any moral or ethical issue, simply because of evolutionary principles. The internet is evolving faster then it can be censored. If, and this I doubt, but if they manage to censor all the current expression methods on the internet, more will be created to fill the gaps, and more. It's a fight that can't be won.
The only thing we need worry about is whether 4chan becomes the dominant player in the free expression market
I had never heard of this guy before. Now I have heard of him and I think he's an idiot. He has found an amazingly effective way to destroy his own reputation.
Indeed, straight from the Chief Justice Herself, Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeche s/ComparativeView_e.asp
That said, the debate isn't new in fact, http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/libel3.html decribes how lawsuit can be used to shout down criticism through intimidation. Jeffrey Shallit http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/
is vice-president of Electronic Frontier Canada http://www.efc.ca/. One of us!
I Swear, God as my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly!!
Remember, this is Canada we are talking about, where, for a short while, it was illegal to name a cow with a human name all because a mid-level functionary, and hyper-sensitive twit shared the same name as a state owned cow.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
They are green.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As of a few days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Crookes is a generic biography page. It's also protected.
The January and September versions have some meat on them. Whether they are accurate or not, who knows?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Kook of the Month [mind your eyes at that site] award ought to be revived...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
All I can say is that Al Gore better get a good lawyer....
As far as a lawyer is concerned, if he's paying then that's all that matters. Saying you found a lawyer who's prepared to argue your case is like saying you found a prostitute prepared to have sex with you.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It's a fine example of the Streisand Effect in action.
The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
I'm suing calculus, for undue mental distress.
(Posting here in case the Wikipedia gods decide to bend over and completely expunge it, somehow... This is all GFDL material.)
Lender to Green Parties
He is best known for his involvement in the Green Party of British Columbia, to which he donated substantial funds in 2001, and the Green Party of Canada, to which he lent nearly $440,000 in 2003-4. It was his activities as that party's major creditor that brought him to the public eye.
Theories began in 2001 about Crookes' motives, with some persons claiming his intent was to "split votes" and elected the BC Liberal Party. Crookes quickly suppressed such suggestions, notably at rabble.ca, a left-wing political chat site, whose publisher Judy Rebick published a boilerplate apology to Crookes, who was otherwise generally successful at avoiding media scrutiny until 2005-6.
Wayne Crookes
Control of the Green Party of Canada
In return for this, "Mr. Crookes was also appointed to a newly- created Green party election readiness committee -- an appointment that rubbed many Greens the wrong way", according to a May 2006 article in the Ottawa Citizen.
After raising concerns about "having a rich guy buy his way into a position of power", Gretchen Schwarz, the Party's Chair, a sentiment she claimed was shared by "a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Greens", "she and five other members of the executive council resigned in 2003." She later complained that financial statements prepared by Chief Agent John Anderson had not ever been made available to the party's elected Council. During the Canadian federal election, 2006, this and other criticisms of Jim Harris' financial relationships and reporting during the period in which the party was repaying Crookes prompted the party to file a number of lawsuits and accuse several critics of lying to alter the outcome of an election, a crime in Canada. After the election, the suits were apparently dropped, [http://openpolitics.ca/GPC+whistleblower+crisis,+ 2006 which were taken by some as proof of their original political motivation].
Though he had resigned as head of the GPC's Management Committee, just before that election, it was widely believed that Crookes' personal penchant for libel actions had influenced the party to take these actions.
During 2005, the party had undergone another crisis very similar to 2003, and this was also widely attributed to Crookes' influence. During the Canadian federal election, 2004, Crookes had served as national campaign manager. Afterwards, he continued to lend the party bridge funds until public funding was received.
He was very involved in operational matters, approved spending proposals personally, and was called "Uncle Wayne" in Council meetings by John Anderson, the party's chief agent, according to Elio Di Iorio.
His influence grew as staff were hired, some of which had originally reported to Crookes during the 2004 election. There were tensions with volunteers and especially with those who working on policy research, who saw the staff as sometimes usurping political work. In January 2005, elected Fundraising Chair Kathryn Holloway came into conflict with Debbie Hartley, who had Crookes' trust and had replaced him as head of the election readiness and campaign team, a conflicted body which included both staff and the Council that they in theory reported to. Holloway was "suspended" from the Council, an unprecedented action with no precedent in the party's constitution. This triggered another set of events usually called the GPC Council Crisis.
Protests about Holloway's treatment grew, and analysis of it was published in party forums. In early February 2005, a memo from Crookes, who had formally withdrawn from the election readiness committee now controlled by Debbie Hartley, was forwarded by Hartley to other insiders. It claimed that "dysfunctional" officers were "driving out the talented", an ominous claim from the party's major creditor.
The very next day, the Green Party of Canada Living Platf
Well, mostly I was taking a swipe at all those "If $X gets elected, I'm moving to Canada" pundits who, unfortunately for those of us in the political center, never actually do.
But yes, the stupidity of the Green party boggles my mind. This is coming from someone who was a member for a brief time. I'm very much about libertarianism and social justice, but I knew that it wasn't for me when I heard their candidate for governor (in VT) speaking about how he thought that Vermont should secede from the Union. Any party willing to run anyone for any office who didn't seem to pick up on the fact that states have no right to secede, as established a hundred and fifty years ago by our Civil War, is not a party I even want to remember. Kind of like waking up next to one of those people you would NEVER sleep with sober and just praying to God there's a condom in the trash.
In all honesty, I'm a little disappointed I got moded down. Then again, thinking I must have hit a few left wing nutcases pretty close to the mark makes me feel good about myself. I think I'll go have a cookie to celebrate.