My response to Richard Warman

Thanks to everyone for their kind words of encouragement. Mr. Warman called the McGill Tribune today, incredulous that this had been leaked to the blogosphere and posted in my personal blog (despite the fact that he CCed me on the original e-mail). I can't believe that he doesn't have anything better to do than worry about student journalists. When Warman first e-mailed me, I e-mailed him an impassioned defense of my article. I hesitated to post it, but given the nature of Warman's responses and the general legal precedent that data sent via e-mail is not necessarily expected to be kept confidential, I see no harm at this point.

Warman did not respond directly to my e-mail, instead threatening the editor-in-chief of the Tribune (a student herself, buried in final exams, group projects and putting together a newspaper) over content that appeared in my personal blog. I don't know what he expected to accomplish. Even if asked by the Tribune management or the Student Society, I would not retract information that appeared in my personal blog. In all this time, he never has asked to speak to the author of the piece -- only harassing the full-time student editor-in-chief of a student newspaper. He also has not replied to my e-mail, despite the fact that I was willing to engage with him in a polite and respectful manner over this issue. Below is what I sent him upon receiving the initial threatening e-mail from Warman.

Dear Mr. Warman,

I am writing a response as a private citizen -- and my answer here in no way reflect the opinions of the McGill Tribune or the Student Society of McGill University.

I do genuinely apologize for putting mistaken information into my March 26th op-ed -- namely, I did accidently insinuate that you were the plaintiff in 50% of all human rights cases instead of the more specific section 13 cases. Further, I did not properly and fully investigate the origin of the Icke case. This data was taken (and cited properly) from a Mark Steyn peice which appeared in Macleans and the Montreal Gazette -- and was improperly translated into my own words. As far as I know, these errors will be retracted in print, and corrected online and are genuinely sloppy journalism. Again, I apologize.

However, if you read the crux of the piece, it had nothing to do with your work. I very specifically avoided mentioning you in the brunt of the argument, knowing that you would probably mischaracterize a more prominent role in the op-ed as a personal attack (given your history with Ezra Levant). Rather, I wanted to point out (in my view) some of the more absurd, twisted and anti-liberal restrictions on free speech that exist under Canadian law in the name of "protecting" minority communities and populations. The Steyn piece in the Gazette disturbed me and I was writing a piece about the history of censorship in Canada at the same time. Though the censorship piece fell through, I was outraged enough about what I read to turn my research into an op-ed. The brunt of the piece is that Canada's regime of political correctness is antithetical to traditionally-understood liberal values. This is a matter for fair and reasonable people to debate, discuss and disagree upon. Your quote over the Icke incident perfectly captured a point-of-view that I believed was necessary to include in my discussion of the issue, and thus I felt the need to include it in the piece. I apologize if my introduction mischaracterized your work, but it was not an attempt to link you to "crypto-fascism." I find that reading of my piece disingenuous and frankly, very shallow.

I also find it disturbing that you would resort to using minor arcane details in a piece coupled with a vague threat of legal action to try to and censor the piece in its entirety and in perpetuity. Like it or not, you are a public figure -- and you are especially relevant in any discussion of Section 13, or Canadian human rights law. Your actions and quotations should be available for others to quote, discuss and even attack. Writing and demanding that we correct the information would have been an appropriate action -- demanding a draconian apology and the censorship of the entire piece is not at all appropriate.

Frankly, I believe that you are being smugly self-righteous about this particular issue. One of the central ideas in my piece is that there is no monopoly on truth -- a monopoly that you seem to believe that you have. What is the point of legally threatening penniless student journalists who dared to comment on a matter of public interest? You were certainly not the topic of my op-ed -- rather, Canadian human rights law as a whole was. Your quote was merely used as an example and as supporting evidence. Nowhere did I identity you with "crypto-fascism" -- only Canadian law as a whole is described that way. We would be happy to correct the accidental misinformation, but I don't believe it is appropriate to demand the suppression of the piece as a whole.

Respectfully, I must challenge your interpretation of my article as a whole, and your attitude during this whole matter. Instead of respecting the right of authors and writers to comment on your work, you have shown a reckless disregard for freedom of the press in many instances. Instead of stepping up in the marketplace of ideas and responding to me and my ideas in a public forum (such as with an op-ed of your own), you threaten legal maneuvers. I understand libel law -- and I do not believe that you have actually suffered an actual fiscal damage in this case, but then again, you are the lawyer, not me. To avoid potential libel, we will retract the misinformation and offer you column space of your own to reply. However, the ideas in the piece itself were not libelous or misleading or misinformation or malicious. They were important issues facing Canadian society. As a public figure, you have a responsibility to promote public service and public debate to the next generation of Canadian leaders. Your actions in this matter (and in other similar cases) have not demonstrated a commitment to that democratic responsibility. I suggest you reconsider your stance on my op-ed. Respectfully, I do no appreciate being threatened with libel suits. Respectfully, I again apologize for the misinformation. I do not apologize for my ideas. I do not apologize for my piece.

Sincerely,

—Byron C. Tau
Montreal, QC
April 4, 2008