Lying Costs! Send Money!

Regular readers of DJ! know that we are not keen on much to do with the Vatican Taliban here, with one exception, Raymond Gravel.

Seems he was a tad ticked at being called 'pro-abortion' by LifeShite, so he sued.

Today we learn that the case is going to trial.

A libel and defamation lawsuit against LifeSiteNews.com, filed by Canadian priest Father Raymond Gravel who describes himself as “pro-choice,” will go to trial.

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' depiction of him in the agency's news articles as “pro-abortion” is libelous, because he says he is “pro-choice” but does not support abortion per se.

In response to the advancement of the case, LifeSiteNews editor John-Henry Westen called the move “a grave danger to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, not only in Canada, but in North America.”

Freedom is in grave danger! Send money!

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' reporting about him ruined his reputation as a politician and priest. He seeks damages of 500,000 Canadian dollars, or about $492,000, as well as costs.

On Jan. 11 a Quebec judge ruled that the lawsuit can advance to trial, dismissing the claims of LifeSiteNews that Fr. Gravel is merely intending to gag them.

The damages sought by Fr. Gravel are identical to a full year's budget for the site, according to its editors. It has already spent some $170,000 on the suit.

Waaah.

And its USian cousin better start raising some big bucks to defend against a potential? probable? suit by Dr LeRoy Carhart over this bit of libel.


ADDED: More details on the Gravel case. Also a wrinkle: defamation law is somewhat different in Quebec.

LifeShite Libels Dr Carhart

I am not a lawyer, but this isn't libel I'll eat my hat.

Dr Carhart should sue.

Eyebrow raised in salute.

Roughly twice a year I get my hair cut and coiffed by a lovely woman, a business person who owns her own salon.

She listens to what I want, makes suggestions and prunes my hair so I can style it with my fingers. Since it can be gnarly, as well as curling and flipping in odd directions. it's a demonstration of her skills that the cut grows out nicely and requires no daily fussing.

This time she convinced me that my (also gnarly) eyebrows would benefit from a judicious weeding. This involved the application of warm wax around the imaginary perimeter of a normal eyebrow line, the firm pressing of a small cloth, and many merciless yanks.

After the swelling subsided - about 24 hours later - I observed the results. Who knew that brows, much like the berms along rivers, need something to anchor them? The removal of those sparse, wandering wisps precipitated un glissement de terrain.

The upside is that one of my eyebrows is quite mobile and often emphasizes what I'm thinking and saying. So now when I raise that brow, it is a perfectly defined, expressive arch instead of a fuzzy caterpillar wriggling between my forehead and my eye.

This calls for such salute. Is it my imagination or is Ezrant's apology a wee bit ... grudgy?